Seòmar agus comataidhean

I echo everything that has been said. It seems to me that the Government keeps saying that the rates have been agreed; indeed, the committee has previously heard evidence on that. However, I do not think that that is particularly fair. The profession says that it had no choice, that that was what was on the table and that if it did not take the offer, there would be no increase.

We have some information in the committee papers, particularly on hourly rates. I do not think that we need a huge amount of financial knowledge in order to understand the information on page 10, for example. Obviously, there has been an increase in the use of fixed-fee arrangements, but the hourly rates have not kept up with the rate of inflation or with any other indicator that we might expect.

It is quite apparent that there have been massive cuts in legal aid, and that solicitors in particular are now being paid a lot less, in real terms, than they would have been 25 years ago. It might be that the Scottish Government can provide some justification for that, but I do not think that we need a huge amount of further evidence to be able to see that that is clearly the case.

It is clear that there is a huge amount of anger, as there is in England, where there are similar problems and where barristers are now on strike. We have already had some strikes by the legal profession in Scotland, including the decision not to carry out certain types of work. The situation is clearly very heated, but I do not think that we, as a committee, can be mediators. We cannot perform that function.

In addition, we are going into a period of austerity. We were told that the cuts to the budgets in the justice sector were going to be approximately 20 per cent, and that was when inflation was lower. That backdrop means that the problem is going to get a great deal more serious, because the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans and the relevant ministers presumably have very little financial flexibility at their disposal.

The situation is highly concerning. It is clear that there have been massive cuts. I am not exactly sure what role the committee can play, as we are not mediators, but I think that we have to accept that there have been massive cuts in the legal aid budgets. As a consequence, some of the most vulnerable will not be getting the support that we would like them to have. That is the message that the committee should be sending: that we recognise that there have been significant cuts and that that will have an impact.

I presume that we will look at the issue in detail, as part of our scrutiny in the budget review process. As I said earlier, my understanding is that, across the board, budgets for the justice sector are being cut by approximately 20 per cent. That will not necessarily be an even cut, and that figure was given before we had the current information on expected levels of inflation. I presume that we will see a lot more detail on the cuts so that we will be able to scrutinise them and see what their impact is likely to be in specific sectors.

We should call for more evidence so that we can consider that. We should know how the police intend to respond and where the cuts are likely to be. They will be making strategic decisions about how to respond. Certain types of work might be given more protection than others and certain staff might be prioritised over others. It would be interesting to have more information on that as part of the budget process.

I associate myself with what Fulton MacGregor has said. It is a development that we welcome, and we are interested in finding out a lot more about how it will work. I am happy to support the statutory instrument.

A lot of what I was going to say has been covered, particularly the pension points that we want to understand.

It is important that we get on top of exactly where we are on the police, given the spending review and what I understand to be real-terms cuts of in the region of 20 per cent that are coming between now and 2026. Not everything is to do with money; a lot of it is to do with morale, and the two can be intertwined. It is a useful opportunity for the committee to leap ahead of where it would have been in considering budgets and consider how much money the police service will have, because pay must be one of the major ways in which that money is spent.

I am sure that the situation is not all about pay. It will be far more complicated than that, but pay will be one of the factors and it is intertwined with morale. Therefore, it would be useful for the committee to gather as much information as is available on that and make more inquiries so that we can take an early view on it rather than waiting until the end of this year or until next year, when we examine the budgets in more detail.

I was not going to come in on this issue, convener.

Thank you for your comprehensive introduction, commissioner, which addressed some of the issues that I was going to ask about. You gave us an explanation of the lead-up to the creation of the draft code of practice and the consultation process, and it sounds as though there was a high level of consensus in the discussions on what should be in the code. Were there any contentious issues? What might be the contentious issues for the public? Did you think that any issues might be contentious before you had the discussions, even if it turned out that there was consensus among those who were involved?

No. Your response is really helpful. I suppose that that highlights some of the issues with the technology. If people thought that it was 100 per cent accurate, they might be comfortable with it, but the risks of it going wrong will always be an issue.

You talked about keeping the process under review through annual compliance assessments. How will you ensure that the process is robust, that you really engage and that you hear the difficult voices and not just those of the people who are already part of the system?

No, there is no particular reason for that. We would welcome representation from that party. As I said, it is important that there is an understanding and recognition of the fact that there might be a range of views within the group. I suspect that there is probably already a range of views on many issues among the members who are listed, and that range might expand. It is a case of grappling with the issues and having the discussion in a way that is less heated than might be the case in the chamber—a genuine exchange of ideas and information. I hope that the group will be a forum in which that can happen.

Some members of the proposed group are very keen that we use it as a vehicle to find out more about what is happening in the European Union and to foster direct relations with European politicians and parts of the various European structures—not just the European Union—to find out more about what they are doing with regard to guest speakers and other events that would provide information and a better understanding of what is happening in other parts of Europe.

The group’s focus will be partly determined by what the members of the group want to do and the events that they want, but the group will be pan-European rather than focused on any specific issue. If a lot of work was already happening in the Parliament or in another cross-party group on one particular area, that would be an argument for our focusing on something different. I imagine that that would be how it would develop. We might well have some joint events, which I hope would be successful.

That is an extremely helpful question. The answer will depend partly on the appetite of the cross-party groups in question. Among those people who are currently involved in the work to establish the proposed cross-party group, there is very much a willingness and a desire to work with existing cross-party groups.

To use the example that has been given—education—Erasmus is a massive issue, and the organisations that are already involved in the proposed cross-party group are disproportionately in the education sector. So, in the early days, that would be a big issue on which we would need to work with other cross-party groups. We would attempt to be very sensitive to the work that is already taking place and to work collaboratively. If another cross-party group was already leading on an issue, that would be an argument that perhaps we should focus on another area.

The post-Brexit issues are potentially massive, and I have no doubt that there will be a continuing debate about those. For example, some people are arguing that there should be a softer form of Brexit and that we should rejoin the single market. Those debates might or might not become big debates over time, and I would hope that there would be a range of views within the proposed cross-party group—there should not be a presumption that there would be one view. I suspect that we would want to have a range of views and to have that discussion. That is the nature of a cross-party group, and I hope that that is how the proposed group would develop.

I am very grateful. Thank you.