Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

The provisions in the bill on oral notice by tenants reflect the law as it is at the moment. For those who think that a tenant should give notice in writing, there is flexibility in the bill to provide for that. It is open to the parties to agree a provision in the lease that written notice must be given to terminate it—section 23 allows for that. To be clear, oral notice can be given by the tenant only when the lease is for less than a year, so that will not apply in all cases.

Leases of less than a year in duration tend to be more informal in nature and do not need to be in writing. They are of particular value to businesses that need flexibility because they are involved in temporary activities or are testing new markets, for example by operating concessions or food stands.

Requiring tenants to give written notice in all circumstances would be a significant change in the current law, and the Scottish Law Commission did not consult on it. It could also create a trap for small business people, who might think that, because they have entered into a lease by way of an oral agreement, they can terminate the lease in the same way, but they might find themselves having to continue to let the premises.

We should reflect on the possible unintended consequences that such a change in the law could have, particularly for small businesses when they are starting out.

Good morning. The Leases (Automatic Continuation etc) (Scotland) Bill will implement recommendations that the Scottish Law Commission made in 2022 to reform aspects of the Scots law of commercial leases. This is the fourth SLC bill in the current parliamentary session, and a fifth, which is on contract law, was recently announced in the programme for government, demonstrating our commitment to law reform.

Most businesses, large or small, operate from let premises, at least to some extent, and the relationship between landlord and tenant is crucial to commercial life in this country. It is important that the law that governs that relationship functions effectively, so the bill aims to improve, simplify and update aspects of the Scots law of commercial leases so that it meets the needs of a modern Scottish economy.

The bill’s principal purpose is to reform the current law of tacit relocation. That is the process whereby a lease continues automatically after its termination date unless one party gives notice to the other that it will come to an end or both parties agree at the time that it will come to an end.

I have listened to the evidence of stakeholders, including those who have questioned the need for reform in the area and others who have suggested that the bill might need to be rewritten. I do not agree with the latter view. As far back as 2010, the SLC was approached by practitioners and solicitors in the area who said that the law should be reformed because it was uncertain and was acting as a deterrent to commercial property investment. The SLC’s project sets out clearly that the law of termination of commercial leases is inaccessible, uncertain and outdated and why that is so. Representative bodies of Scottish small businesses and landlords have welcomed the bill and are supportive of it. No doubt we will discuss that further in today’s meeting.

All that aside, however, a number of technical issues have come up during stage 1 evidence. I have worked constructively with the committee on previous SLC bills and I will continue to do so as this bill progresses. I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.

I will pass over to Michael Paparakis or Lori Pidgeon, because that is a technical issue.