Chamber and committees

I have set out the context, and I am not sure that it is right to characterise the situation as a rise in cases, because we think that dog theft has returned to pre-pandemic levels. Education and deterrence are important and we should take note of those things. However, for any new law, we need a clear evidence base to show that it would have a real and beneficial impact. I am sure that members would accept what I have said about that.

As members have indicated, I recognise that the theft of a beloved pet has an impact on those whose pets have been stolen. That has come out strongly in the debate. The criminal law policy question is whether the creation of a specific criminal offence meaningfully adds to the powers of the police and the courts to tackle dog theft, given the wide-ranging powers that courts already have to take relevant matters into account when sentencing.

The debate has been good in raising awareness of the important issue of dog theft. I will conclude on what I hope is a positive note: Police Scotland has advised that its records show that in around half of all cases where a dog has been reported as being stolen, that dog has subsequently been reunited with its owner. It is clear that that is much easier to achieve when the dog has been microchipped. Microchipping is an effective method to identify animals and to help reunite them with their owners when they have been lost or stolen, as has come out strongly in the debate. As members may be aware, the Government made it compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped and for contact details to be kept up to date. It is standard practice for enforcement agencies to scan all dogs that are coming into their care, which helps to ensure that when a lost or stolen dog is recovered, it can be returned to its owners swiftly.

The Government is happy to work with interested parties, including the police and animal welfare organisations, to look at what can be done to improve how pet theft is addressed in our criminal justice system. I am happy to consider any specific new evidence-based proposals on how the criminal law could be improved in this area.

The member is absolutely right to raise that point. We know that that could be a risk and a number of immediate measures have been taken to respond to the crisis, including the monitoring of online searches. A spike in searches for Ukrainian women for sex and marriage has already been recorded. Translated information is being provided to fleeing Ukrainian nationals in country that informs them of their rights and options. The temporary protection mechanism that the European Union established also includes a temporary residence permit and access to the employment market.

On 13 March, the OSCE’s special representative co-ordinator for combating trafficking visited the Polish reception centres, looking to inform policy makers on how best we can support those who are displaced and prevent the risk of trafficking.

Once refugees come into Scotland, we will need to look at risks and safeguarding.

It is great that so many Scots will potentially open up their homes as part of the UK Government’s sponsorship scheme, but we have some concerns about the matching process. We are seeking further information on the approach that will be taken to safeguarding, and I will update the chamber when we have more information on that.

The pandemic presented unprecedented challenges across Scotland’s railways, including increased antisocial behaviour. As we recover, British Transport Police data shows that offences of this nature have been reducing since last October. British Transport Police works closely with partners on joint initiatives to deter crime on the railway. For example, operation safer shores and operation ballaton safely manage high volumes of passengers to Balloch and Ayrshire during holiday periods. The transport minister discussed those concerns in recent meetings with trade unions and her officials liaise with the safer transport strategic group, which is led by British Transport Police.

No, I do not.

Lots of lawyers are still doing legal aid work. This measure represents an attempt to listen to what the profession is saying, and it puts a significant amount of Government funding into legal aid. We take the matter very seriously.

Thank you for that question. One of the instruments that is before the committee today includes, as well as the 5 per cent uplift, a new payment—a supplementary fee for holiday custody courts. That is a direct attempt by the Government to address the matter, having listened to solicitors who told us that they wanted that. Solicitors who work in holiday custody courts have not been getting an additional payment, so if the committee agrees to recommend the instrument, they will get additional money. We listen constantly to the profession. As I have said, we will adjust fees where we think that doing so will have an impact.

You mentioned civil legal aid. I know that this is quite confusing, because we are talking about lots of different things. In the reforms package that we have developed and put in front of the profession on Monday, and on which the committee will have seen correspondence, there are proposals on solemn and summary courts. The proposals on solemn courts represent significant additional funding, which is a response to requests from the profession to change fee rates and so on. We have done that. In a minute, I will ask Denise Swanson to explain a little more about that.

In discussion, it was—I note for the committee’s information—agreed that the civil side would be left to a later date. That is not to say that we think that everything is fine on that front; we have made a commitment to go back to look at fee reforms for the civil side.

I would, therefore, like the committee to think of this more as a starting point; we are starting here and will continue to consult the profession about changes. We are putting money in: the reform package that we have put on the table this week represents several million pounds of additional funding. I ask Denise Swanson to add a little more on that.

I do not know whether you caught our earlier in-depth discussion about those points. I regularly meet representatives of the profession; I met the chief executive of the Law Society yesterday. Those are full and frank discussions; there are no holds barred. The profession talks to the Government and tells us what it perceives to be the issues. We then have to assess the evidence and make policy decisions based on that.

We have listened to the profession, which is why we have given the uplifts that we have given over the past few years. We know that the legal profession, among other businesses and industries, has been impacted by the pandemic, so we sought to give it additional resilience funding.

I accept that the profession feels very strongly about the matter. The Law Society is right to strongly represent its profession and to try to get the best deal. That is completely legitimate. We have talked about the spending review as one way for the Government to decide on priorities and on how to allocate spending across the board. My job is to try to find a way through the matter and to make fee reforms where they will be of benefit.

The instruments that are in front of the committee represent a significant investment. Before Jamie Greene arrived, we had a discussion about the funding package, of which I hope he has been able to see some details. That funding is additional to what is in the instruments.

I am listening to the profession and I am doing my utmost to respond to the concerns that it raises. My officials work with the profession weekly to develop fee packages to respond to concerns that it has raised. I have been trying to work on that over the past year. For instance, holiday custody courts were raised with us; I wanted to resolve that issue so that practitioners who work in those courts get a supplementary payment. That is one of the measures that is in front of the committee.

I have said before and am happy to say again that my door is open. I am willing to talk with the profession and to work with it on fee reforms. That is what we will continue to do.

A 5 per cent uplift is included in one of the sets of regulations that are before the committee—that was a commitment that the Government made during Covid. I will run through what the Government has done in that regard over the past few years. We made a 3 per cent uplift in 2019 and the 5 per cent uplift in 2021 to which I have already referred. There is the 5 per cent uplift for 2022 that is in front of the committee today, and we have put £1 million into funding 40 trainees, which was in response to issues that the profession raised with us about capacity. The training was an attempt to go some way towards finding a solution to that issue. We also invested £9 million in Covid resilience grants.

In general, the Scottish Government considers the profession to be a partner with us in access to justice, in running the courts system and, because of the pandemic, in addressing the backlog, particularly in the criminal courts. The Government is attempting to demonstrate how much we value the profession by continuing to uplift the fees.

We are also working on packages of fee reforms, one of which we referenced in a letter to the committee—we are developing that at the moment. The full package of fee reforms has gone to representatives of the profession—I think that was last week, was it?

Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the draft Legal Aid and Advice and Assistance (Financial Limit) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022, which will support the coming into force of a negative instrument, the Legal Aid and Advice and Assistance (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2022.

Legal aid legislation sets out prescribed limits of initial authorised expenditure, which is the amount of money that is available from the legal aid fund to cover the costs of fees and outlays before a solicitor must seek approval from the Scottish Legal Aid Board to incur any additional costs.

Due to increases in legal aid fees, including those that are to be delivered by way of the negative instrument that the committee will consider this morning, it is likely that, without our amending the current authorised expenditure limits that apply, they would frequently be exceeded by solicitors when providing advice and assistance to clients early in their instruction. The effect of that would be that solicitors would be required to seek the prior approval of SLAB to ensure the full payment that is available for the work that they undertake. Requiring solicitors to seek such approval for payments, which would otherwise be permitted in the table of fees, would result in additional time, resource and bureaucracy for legal aid providers and SLAB. To address that, the regulations will increase the limits for initial authorised expenditure.

Provision is made in the regulations to increase the maximum total fees per court session that are allowable to duty solicitors representing accused persons in the sheriff or district court. That means that session limits that apply to duty sessions will allow the same number of accused persons to be represented during a session, notwithstanding the fact that the fee per case has increased.

As I said, the affirmative regulations support the Legal Aid and Advice and Assistance (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2022, which, primarily, will deliver the second part of the Scottish Government commitment to uplift legal aid fees by way of an increase of 5 per cent in 2021 and a further 5 per cent increase in 2022. The regulations also provide for a new, supplementary payment for a solicitor to claim when attending a holiday custody court sitting.

The regulations address an anomaly that resulted from a decision in a case that was reported in early 2021 on the interpretation of schedule 4 to the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Regulations 1989 and, in particular, on how it should be applied to the fees of senior counsel.

I hope that that gives the committee a brief overview of the regulations and their context. My officials and I are happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

Yes, absolutely. In relation to the reform package—not what is in front of you now, which is an additional reform—we have already discussed our solemn proposals in quite a lot of detail with the profession, and those are pretty much ready to go. I will be able to bring them to the Parliament quite soon.

The summary proposals need a bit more development, so we will take a bit more time to develop them—again, that could absolutely be progressed this year. Those proposals are already in development, which is certainly a starting point. The fees need a lot of reform, and, as I said, it is an on-going process, but we are happy to consider any suggestions from representatives of the profession on how fees could be changed or altered in the future.