Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the cabinet secretary reaffirm that the Scottish Government is committed to putting patient safety at the heart of our NHS service delivery? What conversations has he had with NHS Grampian about its recovery?

Thank you. We move on to questions from Maggie Chapman.

Good morning, and welcome to the 24th meeting in 2025 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received apologies from Tess White.

Under agenda item 1, do members agree to take in private item 4, which is consideration of evidence on the draft affirmative instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

Under agenda item 2, the committee will consider two draft affirmative instruments. I welcome to the meeting Siobhian Brown, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. The minister is accompanied by Wendy Georgeson, who is the family law team leader at the Scottish Government, and Scott Matheson, who is a senior principal legal officer in the Scottish Government legal directorate. Thank you for joining us.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2 and invite the minister to speak to the draft instruments.

As no member wishes to ask further questions, we will move to agenda item 3, which is formal consideration of the motions on the instruments.

Motions moved,

That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the Regulation of Care (Child Contact Services) (Scotland) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.

That the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the Regulation of Care (Child Contact Services) (Equality) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Siobhian Brown]

Motions agreed to.

I invite members to agree to delegate to me the approval of the publication of a short factual report on our deliberations on the affirmative instruments that we have considered today. Are we all agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

When the 2020 act was going through Parliament, concern was expressed that without sufficient funding for providers, new regulatory requirements would be too onerous for some of them, which could lead to centres closing and, particularly in rural areas, parents having to travel long distances to see their children. How confident are you that that policy risk will be avoided in practice?

Thank you, minister. We move to questions from Pam Gosal.

Thank you. That completes our consideration of the two affirmative instruments. Once again, I thank the minister and her officials for attending this morning.

We will now move into private to discuss the remaining items on our agenda.

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.