Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the opportunity to contribute in my capacity as the convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. I also welcome the report of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and thank the committee for drawing to my committee’s attention its conclusions in so far as they relate to civil legal aid.

Recently, my committee published its report on civil legal assistance. In that report, we drew conclusions about the provision of civil legal aid that mirror the conclusions that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee reached. I begin by stressing that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee agreed that it is unsatisfactory that primary legislation has not been introduced in this parliamentary session to reform the civil legal assistance system. We are disappointed to note that the Scottish Government’s current consultation, which builds on its legal aid discussion paper, has not taken into account any of the committee’s recommendations for short-term changes.

I turn to the two committees’ areas of common concern. First, on eligibility for civil legal assistance, my committee heard serious concerns about the low financial thresholds for eligibility for advice and assistance. Those thresholds have not increased since 2011, and they include a maximum capital limit of £1,716. It seems inconceivable that someone should be eligible for universal credit but not advice and assistance. We recommend that the financial eligibility limit for advice and assistance be increased to match civil legal aid levels. Moreover, we consider that all levels of financial eligibility for advice and assistance and civil legal aid should be increased in line with inflation since 2011.

I welcome the fact that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee is calling on the Scottish Government to work with the Scottish Legal Aid Board to reassess the means-testing arrangements for those schemes and to consider uprating the capital thresholds for both to £16,000, which is the same as for universal credit.

We heard calls for financial eligibility requirements to be waived for certain types of case, including those that involve civil protection orders and gender-based violence more generally. We are strongly of the view that the Scottish Government must pursue reforms with a view to removing financial eligibility tests, to ensure that victims of domestic abuse can access civil protection orders. It must also investigate options for ensuring that legal aid is available to a wider selection of domestic abuse cases without means testing.

The committee heard about so-called legal assistance deserts. For example, it was highlighted to the committee that Grampian Women’s Aid has had to make 50 to 60 calls in order to find a legal aid solicitor. That is not a new problem, and we ask the Scottish Government to take urgent action to address the situation.

A key obstacle to improving the provision of legal aid is the current fee levels for solicitors. The committee heard that increasing those rates would have a significant impact on the availability of legal practitioners who are willing to undertake the work. The committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to review fee levels. We also echo the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s recommendation that fees should be of such a level as to support a trauma-informed approach.

Finally, we urge the Scottish Government and the Scottish Legal Aid Board to reflect carefully on clawback and unrealistic contributions to costs, because those appear to the committee to currently act as barriers to justice.

I reiterate that the evidence showed that people have been waiting far too long for reform, and we ask the Scottish Government to show greater urgency in delivery.

Good morning, and welcome to the 23rd meeting in 2025 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received no apologies.

Under agenda item 1, do members agree to take in private item 4, which is consideration of our work programme?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we move on to part 2 of the bill, I ask whether members are content that they have asked everything that they wish to ask on part 1. Members can always come in at the end, but I want to ensure that we have finished with questions on part 1 and that we make a distinction in moving on to part 2.

Cabinet secretary, some witnesses have suggested that part 2 of the bill is so distinct and different from part 1 that it should not be in the bill. What are your views on that?

We will now have questions from Pam Gosal.

If members are content that they have asked everything that they wish to, that concludes our questions. I thank the cabinet secretary for joining us this morning.

That brings the public part of our meeting to a conclusion. We will now move into private session to consider the remaining items on our agenda.

As you said in your opening statement, we have heard from a wide range of witnesses in the past few weeks. For various reasons, they have been quite critical of the bill. What is your response to that? Can you give those witnesses any assurances that the bill, in its current form, is necessary?

We now go back to questions from Paul McLennan.

Under item 2, the committee will hold its final evidence session on the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Jenny Gilruth, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. She is accompanied by Lewis Hedge, deputy director of the curriculum and qualifications division; Joe Smith, children’s rights reporting and monitoring team leader; Denise McKay, deputy director of children, education, rights incorporation and disclosure in the Scottish Government legal directorate; and Sarah Booth, a lawyer from the Scottish Government legal directorate.

You are all very welcome, and I thank you for joining us. I invite the cabinet secretary to give a brief opening statement before we move to questions.

Good morning, and welcome to the 22nd meeting in 2025 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received apologies from Pam Gosal, and Marie McNair will join us online. Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take item 4 in private. Do we agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.