Chamber
Plenary, 13 Mar 2002
13 Mar 2002 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Legal Aid Inquiry
I welcome the recommendation to change eligibility criteria by removing inconsistencies in benefit treatment. I am particularly pleased that the minister is considering tapering, which will be beneficial. We must increase the qualifying income levels, which determine whether an applicant can be considered for legal aid and the scale of the contribution. At present, the levels prevent women from gaining the protection they require. We must make changes in that quickly.
I am disappointed that the Executive will not take on board the recommendations on the merit test. Scottish Women's Aid took evidence from lawyers. I have a few illustrations of that evidence, which spell out to me—and should spell out to other members—why it is imperative that we do something about the matter. One lawyer stated:
"the legal aid board, for whatever reason, are often reluctant to grant legal aid to protect a person against domestic abuse where there has been no police involvement."
Will the minister ask why that is the case? The lawyer went on to say that they were
"concerned that where an interim interdict has been granted, but when it is breached, there is a reluctance on behalf of the legal aid board to grant legal aid to enable breach of interdict proceedings to be raised."
The lawyer continued:
"The above are simply attempts by the legal aid board to save money, with disregard for the domestic situations of persons who require legal advice and protection from the law … I still have problems with the legal aid board refusing to grant legal aid. Even though a sheriff has granted the interdict at the initial hearing, the board still feel able to second guess by refusing to grant a full certificate. The reasons given by the board vary from ‘it has not been shown that the police would not be able to deal with the situation' to ‘it has not been shown that the behaviour was going to persist'".
As a layman, I reckon that the reason why someone has taken the trouble to challenge that assertion is that that behaviour was going to persist. The system should be proactive, rather than wait for something to happen that we will all regret. The final quote is that the Legal Aid Board refused legal aid for an interdict because
"it was not demonstrated that the orders sought were reasonable and necessary".
If the recommendations that the Justice 1 Committee has made on legal aid are accepted, it should be easier for women to gain the protection that they need. To even the situation up, further consideration must be given to qualifying incomes and merit tests, so that we protect all the people, not just some of them.
I am disappointed that the Executive will not take on board the recommendations on the merit test. Scottish Women's Aid took evidence from lawyers. I have a few illustrations of that evidence, which spell out to me—and should spell out to other members—why it is imperative that we do something about the matter. One lawyer stated:
"the legal aid board, for whatever reason, are often reluctant to grant legal aid to protect a person against domestic abuse where there has been no police involvement."
Will the minister ask why that is the case? The lawyer went on to say that they were
"concerned that where an interim interdict has been granted, but when it is breached, there is a reluctance on behalf of the legal aid board to grant legal aid to enable breach of interdict proceedings to be raised."
The lawyer continued:
"The above are simply attempts by the legal aid board to save money, with disregard for the domestic situations of persons who require legal advice and protection from the law … I still have problems with the legal aid board refusing to grant legal aid. Even though a sheriff has granted the interdict at the initial hearing, the board still feel able to second guess by refusing to grant a full certificate. The reasons given by the board vary from ‘it has not been shown that the police would not be able to deal with the situation' to ‘it has not been shown that the behaviour was going to persist'".
As a layman, I reckon that the reason why someone has taken the trouble to challenge that assertion is that that behaviour was going to persist. The system should be proactive, rather than wait for something to happen that we will all regret. The final quote is that the Legal Aid Board refused legal aid for an interdict because
"it was not demonstrated that the orders sought were reasonable and necessary".
If the recommendations that the Justice 1 Committee has made on legal aid are accepted, it should be easier for women to gain the protection that they need. To even the situation up, further consideration must be given to qualifying incomes and merit tests, so that we protect all the people, not just some of them.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2868, in the name of Christine Grahame, on behalf of the Justice 1 Committee, on the committee's eighth r...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Somehow, I do not think that the debate will be oversubscribed, Presiding Officer.Before I address the detail of the Justice 1 Committee's report, I should s...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I recognise that—
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Is Mr Gallie going to tell us the end of the story?
Phil Gallie:
Con
Sorry, I did not hear that.Christine Grahame is discussing legal aid and the problem of identifying the expertise of solicitors. Would not anyone who is not ...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
The problem is the same, but I said that the woman in my example had to find a firm that had two specialities—reparation and legal aid. The category has to b...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Let us try Mr Wallace.
The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace):
LD
I thank the committee and all who contributed to its work for the efforts that were made in producing an important report. Indeed, I thank Christine Grahame ...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Let me make it clear that the committee's letter sets out the four most important issues that should be considered straight away. We will then address the ot...
Mr Wallace:
LD
I am grateful for that. I hope that, in this speech, I hit on the correct four.I have limited time today, but I want to highlight some of the central recomme...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
The minister's position is reasonable if the limit for small claims stays at £750. However, would he take a different view if the limit went up to £1,500, wh...
Mr Wallace:
LD
The whole point of the small claims system is that it is intended to be relatively straightforward. Once we enter the realms of legal aid, the process become...
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
The report is fairly comprehensive and the minister detailed a long list of things that he is taking on as a result of it. It is almost impossible to cover e...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):
Con
I thank the Deputy First Minister for his constructive response this afternoon, but I ask him and his colleague whether they can confirm that all those propo...
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
When we first began considering access to justice in the old Justice and Home Affairs Committee, we looked at gaps in the law and omissions that discriminate...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
We move to open debate. The debate is currently running about 10 minutes light, so speakers can have up to six or even seven minutes if they so wish. I ask P...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
You gave me a fright there, Presiding Officer, but I am sure that I will think of something to say.I believe that we have an important piece of work in front...
Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the Justice 1 Committee for its important work on changes to civil legal aid. It goes without saying that the work is particularly important for wome...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Eligibility.
Mr Paterson:
SNP
Thanks very much, teacher.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
It is late in the day.
Mr Paterson:
SNP
I welcome the recommendation to change eligibility criteria by removing inconsistencies in benefit treatment. I am particularly pleased that the minister is ...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I congratulate the committee on the fact that the minister seems to have acted on some of its recommendations already. All members of the committee must feel...
Gordon Jackson (Glasgow Govan) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member give way?
Phil Gallie:
Con
Yes, but I am on a tight time scale.
Gordon Jackson:
Lab
Mr Gallie has always believed in giving legal aid to small businesses, but has he worked out how much that would cost? Have we an indication of what it would...
Phil Gallie:
Con
I accept that, but my point concerns very small businesses. I commend the Justice 1 Committee for asking the Executive to perform a cost analysis along the l...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr Murray Tosh):
Con
I thank Mr Gallie for his single-handed effort to get us back to the timetable. We are still about five minutes light, so I will be reasonably flexible as we...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
The work for this report was done before I became a member of the Justice 1 Committee, so I can praise the report dispassionately. It raises a lot of importa...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
As I have never served on the Justice 1 Committee or been involved in the issue before, I can, with some detachment, congratulate the committee on a job well...