Hansard

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 recommendations. Richard Simpson will no doubt be happy to respond, either today or later, to other issues that members raise in the debate.

Before I talk about the report, it might be helpful to set the debate in a wider context. It is worth recalling that, despite the acknowledged difficulties, Scotland has a generous legal aid system. Indeed, it has one of the most generous systems in Europe. Last year, help was given to nearly 330,000 people through advice and assistance schemes, 14,000 people through civil legal aid and 75,000 through criminal legal aid.

Not only is the scope of our system wide but, at £25 a year for everyone in Scotland, the cost of legal aid is substantial. Our system has evolved considerably over recent years, so I accept that it is complex. I admit that it is not without its problems. The Executive is committed to improving the way in which the legal aid system operates and to improving access to justice for those who need it most. However, although we must seek to do better, we must not forget that our system already does pretty well by those who need it.

The committee's recommendations seem to fall into four main categories: those on which we have already taken action; those on which we may be able to act soon; those on which further work and reflection and, in some cases, primary legislation is required; and those on which I cannot in all honesty agree with the committee. I am pleased to say that there are relatively few recommendations in the final category.

In the first category, I draw attention to the range of issues on which we have already acted. We have already agreed to a new regime for dealing with urgent legal aid, which will mean that people no longer need to pay substantial sums up front to their solicitor. We have already found extra money to allow most people to make contributions over 20 months instead of 10 or 15 months. We have also uprated the income eligibility levels both for advice and for civil legal aid. We have made legal aid available for employment tribunals. We have agreed to make civil legal aid available for cases that are dealt with by social security commissioners and VAT tribunals. Those areas represent a significant step forward.

In the second category, I will mention four points on which we may be able to act soon. First, as Christine Grahame said, there will be a change to the capital eligibility limits. Because the limits for advice and assistance and for civil legal aid have not been changed for many years, their value has been eroded by inflation. I accept that and, today, I intend to put it right. I am pleased to be able to announce that I intend to increase the capital limit for advice and assistance, which was last uprated in 1992, from £1,000 to £1,300. I also intend to increase the lower capital limit for civil legal aid, which, as Christine Grahame pointed out, was last uprated in 1983—the year in which I went to the House of Commons—from £3,000 to £6,000, and to increase the upper limit from £8,500 to £10,000. The old lady with £9,000 would come into that range under the new proposals. I will bring forward regulations as soon as possible and I will be seeking additional resources in the forthcoming spending round to support those changes.

Those increases, which are all greater than inflation, will make a real impact on the number of people who qualify for legal aid and on the number of people who are exempted from contributing towards the cost. They will make a significant contribution to improving access to justice. For the future, I want to avoid allowing the limits to fall so badly behind again, so I have asked my officials to examine streamlined mechanisms to ensure that limits are uprated on a regular basis as a matter of course.

Matrimonial cases make up the greatest part of civil legal aid actions and we want to consider the amount of winnings—if we may call them that—that are exempt from any clawback by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. That amount has remained at £2,500 since 1987. I propose to increase the amount to £4,200—once again, an increase that is greater than inflation. However, I should stress that, although I see such cases as deserving particular support, I do not intend to extend such special treatment to other types of case.

On the arrangements for the Scottish Legal Aid Board to give sanction for expert witnesses in criminal cases—a technical point, but one that the committee rightly highlighted—I intend to introduce an amendment to the regulations to give the board greater flexibility so that cases can proceed more quickly and smoothly.

I will now talk about the issues that require further thought, further work or further primary legislation—or, indeed, all three. I will highlight three issues. I have sympathy with the difficulties that individuals can encounter when they try to raise a group action. I have asked my officials to discuss with the Scottish Legal Aid Board how those difficulties might be addressed and I will come back to the committee with my conclusions in due course.

I am attracted, in principle, to the idea of introducing a new, tapering system of contributions that would allow eligibility to be extended further up the income scale when the cost of legal action is too great for those on middle incomes to undertake. A number of complex issues must be considered and I have instructed my officials to examine them with the board and to report back to me as soon as possible. As the motion indicates, the committee will return to these issues; Richard Simpson and I will certainly return to the committee to discuss our progress and conclusions.

The committee also recommended that the Executive should look at the impact of changing the rules on recovery of expenses for successful opponents in legal aid cases. I want to go further than that. I am persuaded that the current test of severe hardship is too high a hurdle. I therefore intend to find a suitable opportunity to reduce the test to one of hardship. That will ease the burden on a considerable number of successful opponents. However, I warn that the legislative programme is already full and that I do not expect there to be room for primary legislation this side of the next election.

I should also mention fees for civil legal aid work. I am conscious of the case for an increase in fees, even though I do not accept the allegation that there is a shortage of practitioners. We are still awaiting proposals from the Law Society of Scotland. I undertake to consider those proposals carefully when I receive them. However, to pick up on a fair point that Christine Grahame made, let me emphasise that I will be prepared to countenance a substantial increase in fees only if it is accompanied by the introduction of robust quality assurance arrangements and real improvements in the efficiency of the system. Let us be clear: there are not unlimited resources. Increasing fees for solicitors limits our scope for other changes to benefit clients.

Lastly, and briefly, I will talk about issues on which I cannot agree with the committee. I do not think that there is a good case for legal aid to be extended to small claims cases and I see no reason to review the very short list of proceedings that are exempted from civil legal aid.