I want to address what seems to be a bit of a contradiction in views about the situation in legal aid. Anyone who follows Scottish legal news or who has seen any headlines over the past few days and weeks will know that the legal profession is vocal in its concern about the situation. That is quite different to what we are hearing today about the drop in revenue being simply a by-product of the drop in demand.

We heard from Citizens Advice Scotland that the number of people seeking legal assistance has gone up by more than 30 per cent in the past year, but that the amount of grants being paid out over the same period had dropped by, I think, 27 per cent.

Another illustration is that witnesses who gave evidence at a previous session said that there are “legal aid deserts” in provision in Scotland. They also mentioned that there are many and varied issues to do with access to justice that are particularly acute in island and rural communities.

It seems to me, on the one hand, that a body of people are saying that the fees structure does not work and that they are not getting enough money for they work that they do, and that people in the real world are not able to access the legal justice and representation that they deserve or want. On the other hand, the system is saying that it pays out only as much as it is asked for. That seems to be a huge contradiction. Why is there that difference of views?

That is great.

I will follow on from that. I guess that the three strings to the puppet are interlinked. One string is the set level of fees, which is out of your control; it is a policy decision for Governments. The second string is the volume of cases that are brought to prosecution. The third string is the value of cases, which we have not discussed. There is probably no magic solution to all that. Surely, an increase in one or more of those would increase the level of grants that are paid out by SLAB and the amount of revenue coming into organisations such as Pauline McNeill mentioned, which are smaller scale and seem, on the face of it, to be struggling to survive. Where do you fit into the triangle in terms of getting those numbers up? We do not necessarily want to pay out more, but if that is the right thing to do because we have an uncapped system, then so be it. Something has to give. What is the most likely outcome?

I note that the previous survey was in 2018.

Good morning, panel. We have already covered a lot of ground, and I do not want to risk revisiting some of that, but my questions might lead to some crossover, so we might go back a bit.

First, I go back to the so-called “crisis” in the profession. The SSBA submission states:

“The profession is in crisis”,

so my comments and questions are perhaps best directed at Miss McPartlin in the first instance.

I would like you to elaborate on that; I am sure that some of your comments will echo what Mr Moir said. I want to get to the nub of the matter. Is it the case that the reasons that the profession is in crisis are twofold? First, you are struggling to recruit new entrants to the market, and it takes time to get them up to speed to enable them to handle cases at the level that is required of them, and secondly, there is churn, and you are losing people halfway through their career, or even in the early stages, to other parts of the legal sector.

It has been suggested that the increase in legal aid will be a short-term fix for those issues, but I am not convinced that I have heard the evidence, or the argument, for the connection in that regard. Perhaps someone can help me with that. I do not see a direct link between an immediate raise in fees and a solution to the problem of churn. Why do you think that there is such a crisis in the profession?

That is not what the other witnesses are saying. They are telling us that it is not just that a crisis is brewing—it is already happening. Mr Moir, what is your response to what Mr Fraser said?

The letter from the Public Audit Committee notes that enforcement of the 2010 act falls under civil law but that the review of the wider dog control legislation falls under criminal law, so it seems appropriate that this committee has a watching brief over progress in that area. Given the predecessor committee’s legacy paper, which was clear that the committee was frustrated by the pace of the response to the issue, it is fitting that we raise the issue with the relevant minister, who is probably the Minister for Community Safety, although I am not sure. It would be interesting to ask the minister, in writing or face to face, for an update on progress on the consultations that have been launched and legislative plans in the area.

Thank you—that answer addresses my process queries and concerns. Those are noted on the record, and other members may have comments to make on that.

On the substance of the powers that are being extended, the cabinet secretary’s letter helpfully summarised some of the consultation responses that we have been unable to see. My impression from the three-page letter was that more concern than praise was raised, if I can put it that way.

Concerns were raised, in turn, on rule 40A, on time limits; on rule 41A, on accommodation; on rule 63A, on the suspension of visits; on rule 84A, on purposeful activity; and on rule 88A, on recreation. In effect, that covers the entirety of the powers that the Government is seeking to extend. In their substantive responses, all three organisations expressed concerns about some of the rules. Some of them even suggested potential amendments.

We cannot amend the instrument; in fact, we cannot even vote on it, which is unfortunate. However, given the context, level and nature of some of the concerns that have been raised by us and by stakeholders in the consultation process—I am sure that we can go into those in detail—why does the Government think it appropriate for the extension of the powers in their entirety as they currently exist simply to be nodded through?

Sure.

It sounds as if the legal aid payment review panel, which reported to Government earlier this year, has not gone down well with you either. You say that it

“has failed to produce any meaningful results.”

I note that there was a Government-initated question in Parliament today, and the Minister for Community Safety said that the Government accepts that more consultation and research into reform needs to be done. I am sure that we will come on to talk about reform later.

I have a separate question about moving forward. We all accept that we are where we are at the moment. I think it was Mr Moir who said that courts that were set up are being mothballed. We know that there is a backlog of almost 50,000 cases to get through, and that is a concern to everyone we have spoken to at the Crown Office and in the legal profession. How do we address the backlog in the short term if there simply are not enough people to do it? I will direct that question at the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service because you obviously have an ambitious drive to clear that backlog as soon as you can. We can do it if we have the buildings and the Crown resources, but we cannot do it if there are no defence lawyers. How do we plug that gap? That is quite worrying.

Why did so many defence lawyers boycott the holiday courts? Is that constructive?