Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have to remember that the legal aid fund is demand led and is directly linked to application numbers, and that all eligible costs are met. As I said in my opening statement, in this year alone, £174 million will be provided.

In relation to the reform, we are currently drafting Scottish statutory instruments, putting them out to consultation and looking at the assessments of them. Last week, I met SLAB and discussed the fact that it could take between four and eight months for the SSIs to be implemented. By the time of implementation, therefore, there will be a budget available for that.

On the point about financial eligibility thresholds for civil legal aid, I discussed that briefly with SLAB when I met it last week. SLAB has provided an analysis paper to the Scottish Government that provides advice on a range of possible changes to financial eligibility thresholds for civil legal aid and advice and assistance. The modelling includes the impact of the thresholds on eligibility levels and costs. However, any changes to policy will not be cost neutral, so we will, as a Government, have to consider that. We will carefully consider the SLAB paper in conjunction with the wider set of reforms that are set out in the Government’s discussion paper.

I go back to your point about who is receiving legal aid. I have sat in committee over the past couple of years, and I have spoken to those in the legal profession and totally appreciate and understand the challenges that they face. As I said, we really need legal aid reform for the future.

As a Government, we have seen the legal aid budget go up every single year—two years ago, it was quoted as £141 million, and it went up to £151 million. Because legal aid funding is demand led, the Scottish Government will pay it. We are now up to £174 million. Every year, we are seeing an increase in legal aid, so it is not that people are not getting legal aid.

As has been highlighted to the committee, the picture is complex and hard to understand—we see it from the SLAB side, and I am seeing it from the Scottish Government side, with the budget increasing every year. We have to work together with the legal profession, with SLAB and with third sector stakeholders on how, moving forward, we can create a model that addresses all the challenges that everybody currently faces.

People are getting legal aid at the moment, as we can see from the budget. I do not know whether anyone else wants to comment on that.

The discussion paper that has just been published—we are working on the draft regulations at the moment—looks at short-term things. I know that we have eight or nine months before we go into purdah, so we are limited in what we can do, but the ball is rolling on certain things. The paper also looks at what we can do in the medium-to-long term.

I appreciate your comments that SLAB could make exceptions for some avenues for people who are fleeing domestic abuse. I listened to the previous evidence session and, as Colin Lancaster said, the law is very complex. Some lawyers might not be aware of the information, because it is not a field that they take a specific interest in—they might take up a case one day and not know about everything that is available.

This should perhaps be in place now, but as we do the legal aid reforms, which will specifically involve working with the Law Society and all the stakeholders, we must ensure that the legal profession and any solicitors who are dealing with a specific case—be it domestic abuse, a criminal case or whatever—are aware of the specific criteria according to which SLAB could make exceptions.

I do not think that the mixed model would be used to save money. In moving forward with the reform, there has to be flexibility and balance between both models. Obviously, we still need the judicare model, and we always will. However, if we can also move forward with grant funding—the Scottish Government’s aim is to be able to give year-to-year funding—we can have that balance and flexibility. The mixed model is not to be used specifically to save money.

Yes, we are. We are working on some draft SSIs. It will be after the summer, but we are working at pace on the secondary legislation and doing what we can in the meantime, before we go into purdah next year.

I absolutely understand the frustration. I appreciate it, and the issue of organisations moving away from a year-to-year funding model is brought up with me quite frequently. You will appreciate that the Scottish Government has the same issue; we do not know what we are going to get until the September or October before we have to finalise our budget. However, we recognise the financial uncertainty that that causes.

The Scottish Government is aiming to move away from short-term projects. As part of the 2025-26 programme for government, it has committed to delivering a fairer funding pilot. That will provide multiyear funding to third sector organisations that deliver front-line services and tackle child poverty. It is not for every organisation, and it is only a pilot. However, I am hopeful that if it is a success we can give other organisations multiyear funding.

I totally appreciate your comments, Ms Gosal. It is unacceptable. As we know, people who are fleeing domestic abuse can be some of the most vulnerable in our society. I am pleased, though, that the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill was passed last week in Parliament, as that will remove restrictions preventing charities, law centres and citizens’ advice bodies from directly employing solicitors to provide certain legal services to some of our most vulnerable, including those fleeing domestic abuse.

I watched Dr Marsha Scott’s evidence, and she highlighted the issue that someone might take on a case for domestic abuse but then not take on the other issues that the person might need legal assistance with. That is where the bill that was passed last week will make things a lot easier for people who are fleeing domestic abuse.

I take your comments on board. No one disagrees that we need reform in legal aid, and all those issues will be embedded in the heart of how we move forward.

Yes, I absolutely appreciate the frustrations. I will provide bit of clarity on the background. My predecessor invited Martyn Evans to do an independent review. The Scottish Government published its response to that back in November 2018. We then went into the Covid era, so things were delayed. There has been substantial progress on things that were recommended in the Evans review, such as the legal aid remuneration project research analysis group, as part of which extensive work was carried out to agree the scope of potential research, and that work is on-going.

I saw Pat Thom from the Law Society of Scotland, who I know that Mr O’Kane has spoken to about the history of that. For example, £10 million was provided on the understanding that everyone would be on that board, and a lot of work was carried out on that remuneration project. Although we have not made progress on primary legislation, which we will do during the next parliamentary session, we need to get the funding model sorted. The board put the research project that was recommended by the Evans review out to tender twice, and unfortunately we were not able to get anybody to look into it.

Although we have uplifted funding by 25 per cent during the past five years, historically that was not done as much. In future, we need to have stability for the legal profession through an annual funding mechanism that can be reviewed. That is a core part of how we move forward with legal aid reform, because it is a bit disjointed. There are a lot of issues, and it is very complex. However, until we get that sorted, I do not see how we can progress, although I do want to move forward with the legal aid reform.

Good morning. I am grateful to the committee for inviting me to contribute to your considerations on civil legal aid.

I recently took the opportunity to meet staff from grant-funded projects, and I heard at first hand about their excellent work and the services that they deliver to people across Scotland. I note that many of the issues that have been raised with the committee are similar to the discussions that I have had about the need for change.

The Government recognises that reform of the current system is needed and that there are challenges in certain areas with certain types of legal aid work. The recently published discussion paper on legal aid reform sets out a programme of work for the rest of 2025-26. Our first priority is to engage with stakeholders on draft regulations and associated impact assessments. Those changes will make it easier both for solicitors to work with legal aid funding and for those who need legal assistance to access it.

We will re-initiate fee review planning and collaborate with stakeholders on the reform of legal fees in 2025. We will take the same collaborative approach to developing detailed proposals for future primary legislation, working with SLAB and with private sector and third sector stakeholders to explore areas of diversifying funding methods and embedding users’ voices—something for which those who have responded to the committee’s inquiry have called.

The report of the independent strategic review of legal aid that was carried out, which is entitled “Rethinking Legal Aid—An Independent Strategic Review”, noted:

“Scotland is one of the leading jurisdictions in Europe in the provision of legal aid judged by scope, eligibility and expenditure per capita.”

It went on to say that “in almost all” solemn criminal cases

“the accused will get legal aid”,

and that in civil cases,

“the scope of legal aid in Scotland is broader than very many jurisdictions, with comparatively little excluded”.

However, legal aid does not sit in isolation, and it is an essential component of access to justice. We recognise that legal aid plays a crucial role in upholding the principle of equality before the law by ensuring that those who cannot afford legal representation are not disadvantaged in the justice system. Legal aid funding allows solicitors to deliver their services to people remotely as well as in person, supporting many people with civil problems.

We have maintained the scope and resourcing of legal aid, and the demand-led budget means that all eligible costs are met. That means that legal aid expenditure is likely to reach £174 million in 2025-26, which is an increase of £5 million on last year’s expenditure budget. That will be the highest-ever level, which highlights a trend of increasing levels of expenditure every year. We must ensure that delivering legal aid is fair to those who deliver the services, and it must also be effective and efficient and deliver value to the public purse. We have maintained funding for the Scottish Legal Aid Board’s civil legal advice grant-funded projects, with up to £2.3 million this year.

I am aware of the significant input that the committee has received in aid of the inquiry. It is clear from all the submissions that have been received, and the evidence from the witness sessions, that there is a strong feeling that civil legal aid in Scotland needs reform, and I, and the Scottish Government, share that belief. I am happy to take any questions.

Yes, absolutely. I think that we all recognise that reform is needed across the board to legal aid, both civil and criminal. The need for the approach to be more trauma informed is an important issue, and I am more than willing to work with SLAB and any third sector organisations to ensure that that happens in any legal aid reform as we move forward.