Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is not under my portfolio, but we can write to the committee about that.

I will bring Walter Drummond-Murray into the discussion. As you said, it is quite a complex subject. I have responsibility for the access to justice part of it. There are also the environmental and planning aspects. We need to have a holistic, joined-up approach.

Historically, Walter has been dealing with the issue.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, committee. The instruments before you are the Upper Tribunal for Scotland (Transfer of Functions of the Transport Tribunal) Regulations 2024 and the Upper Tribunal for Scotland Bus Registration Appeals (Composition) Regulations 2024.These regulations are part of a package of four instruments that are closely connected and were all laid on the same date. The two affirmative instruments are important as they will continue the work to bring current tribunal functions into the Scottish tribunals structure and are essential as part of a wider package to enforce bus services improvement partnerships.

The first instrument, if passed, will transfer the devolved functions of the transport tribunal to the Upper Tribunal for Scotland. Those functions are the appeal functions that are currently exercised by the transport tribunal for certain financial penalties imposed by the traffic commissioner for Scotland on bus operators for failures to comply with certain statutory requirements set out in section 39 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001.

The regulations will also make transitional provisions to ensure that any live appeals before the transport tribunal transfer to the Upper Tribunal for Scotland. Equivalent bus enforcement powers conferred on traffic commissioners in England and Wales have an appeal route directly to the United Kingdom Upper Tribunal. Hearing appeals against service standard decisions in the Upper Tribunal for Scotland will ensure equal access to justice for any cross-border operators.

The second instrument, if passed, will make provision for the composition of the Upper Tribunal when deciding appeals against certain penalties that can be imposed against an operator of a local bus service under section 39 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and service standard decisions made by the traffic commissioner for Scotland in connection with bus services improvement partnerships.

Members of the Upper Tribunal can be legal, judicial or ordinary members. When deciding the appeals outlined above, these regulations provide that the Upper Tribunal may consist of: a legal or judicial member of the Upper Tribunal acting alone, or two or three legal or judicial members of the Upper Tribunal, or the president of the Scottish tribunals, acting alone or with no more than two legal or judicial members.

The power to choose between the compositions that I have just described is delegated to the president of the Scottish tribunals. The president of the Scottish tribunals, Lady Wise, was consulted on both draft sets of regulations in line with the requirements of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014. Lady Wise indicated that she was content with the two instruments. There was also a public consultation that included the regulations, which closed on 27 October 2023.

I understand that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered both sets of regulations on 1 October 2024 and was content.

I want to highlight that these regulations will have no impact on individual members of the public as they relate only to the appeals rights of local bus operators and local transport authorities. I am happy to answer any questions, convener.

As I set out in my letter to the committee last week, the expansion of the civil online system in the sheriff court is one example of something that might have to be curtailed, essential improvements to the Office of the Public Guardian’s systems is another, and work to develop a trauma-informed domestic abuse court is a third. Beyond the examples that I mentioned in my letter, there is simply the risk of increasing delays, which would be to the detriment of all those involved in the court system, but it would be up to the SCTS to decide where to make cuts if it did not get the £4 million a year.

I will bring in Walter in a moment on inflation rates, because he will be able to go over the history of the past five years. The money to fund the court system is needed due to inflationary pressures over the past couple of years. Access for the most vulnerable who need justice is covered by the exemptions and by legal aid. When you seek litigation, the legal fees are usually a lot higher than the court fees. For example, solicitors’ rates in Scotland, depending on the type of work and the experience, start at £125 per hour and go up to anything over £300 per hour.

No. SCTS does not track who is litigating in a form that would allow us to provide those specific statistics. However, we can say that a significant proportion of the litigation is conducted by large organisations from the public and private sectors. Specifically, the insurance industry is a major litigant in the field of personal injury. Thanks to qualified one-way costs shifting, it meets the expenses of both the parties in the large majority of cases.

I urge committee members to support these SSIs to fund the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Budgetary pressures mean that we cannot ignore the impact of inflation over the past couple of years.

I take on board the points that members have made, and I will come to the matter of legal aid, but access to justice is protected by legal aid and court fees exemptions. As we know, court fees are generally a very small part of the cost of a legal action. Legal advice is far more expensive and a bigger issue.

The Scottish Government totally acknowledges the importance of access to justice and the reform of the legal aid system. The Scottish Government has taken significant steps to assist legal aid providers, which has led to an increase in legal aid fees of 25 per cent since 2019.

As I said previously to Maggie Chapman, the number of legal aid solicitors can fluctuate for a variety of reasons, and the issue of solicitor availability is being explored by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It is currently undertaking a comprehensive analysis that will look in detail at legal aid activity at geographical level and subject matter level. I will continue to work with the legal profession and others to identify measures to improve Scotland’s legal aid system.

If the instruments are agreed to today, as we move forward to the next consultation in 2026, I would be happy to commit to a further consultation that would have the public’s interests at heart as part of the next fees review.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that courts are funded to deliver a civil justice system that is accessible, affordable and provides a high-quality service to those who have cause to use it. Beyond that overriding objective, the Scottish Government believes that the fees that are charged to court users should recover the cost to public funds of providing those services when that can be done while protecting access to justice. That means that those who make use of the services of the courts should meet, or contribute towards, the associated cost to the public purse, when they can afford to do so.

A generous system of legal aid and court fee exemptions is the most important means by which access to justice is protected. Over recent years, we have enhanced such protections. For example, people who apply for domestic abuse interdicts or exclusion orders are automatically exempt from paying court fees, and, in 2022, people with environmental cases within the meaning of the Aarhus convention were exempted from paying court fees in the Court of Session. I want to go further in the future, when resources allow.

The instruments that are before the committee establish statutory fee-charging regimes, which the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service administers, so the Scottish Government works very closely with the SCTS on its fees policy. Court fees have generally been reviewed every three years, with the latest full round being implemented in 2022. We do not increase fees annually in line with inflation, but we need to increase them when it is necessary to reflect increased costs. That is why the SSIs are before the committee today.

The wider context of pressure on public finances that has been brought about by significant reductions to the funding that Scotland receives from the UK Government, as well as the inflationary pressures that we are all well aware of, means that it is unsustainable not to consider court fees increasing. As a result of high inflation and increased costs falling on the SCTS, the rate of recovery dropped significantly to 57 per cent in 2023-24.

In my letter to the committee, I set out reasons why the SSIs are necessary and the potential impact on the SCTS should it not receive the additional funding that is being sought through court fees. The expansion of the civil online system in the sheriff court is one example of something that might have to be curtailed, essential improvements to the Office of the Public Guardian’s systems is another, and work to develop a trauma-informed domestic abuse court is a third. Beyond the examples that I mentioned in my letter, there is simply the risk of increasing delays, which would be to the detriment of all those involved in the court system, as a result of a shortfall in projected income of about £4 million per year.

We cannot ignore the fact that we face financial challenges, and we have sought to balance those challenges against maintaining a robust £141.3 million fund for legal aid and court fee exemptions to protect people who could not otherwise afford access to justice.

I urge the committee to pass the SSIs to ensure that courts get the increased fees that they need to reflect inflationary rises and can continue their work in providing justice to those who seek it.

Yes. I want to review them in the future because of inflationary pressures. We cannot address that issue at the moment, but we will in the future.

We know with the inflation over the past couple of years that that figure has gone to 57 per cent in the past year. I do not know the history going back to the figure that you mention, but I will bring in Walter Drummond-Murray, because he will know the history and be able to speak to that.