Hansard

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 everything in the short time available. I welcome the report, not least because I was the convener of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee when it decided to hold an inquiry into legal aid. It is nice to see the end product of something that was set in motion at that time. The committee undertook the inquiry when my colleague Alasdair Morgan was convener and I know that he is very sorry that he is unable to participate in the debate.

The desire to carry out an in-depth investigation of legal aid in Scotland arose out of evidence that the committee was beginning to get in what appeared to be unrelated investigations and reports. My recollection of the committee's initial interest focuses on the evidence that we took on what became the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001. I see that Maureen Macmillan is at the back of the chamber and that my colleague Gil Paterson is also here—I am sure that he will comment on legal aid in connection with domestic violence.

Legal aid is one of the unsung areas of the justice system, which many people appear to love to hate. Legal aid receives media attention only in the context of soaring legal aid costs or the legal aid earnings of solicitors and advocates. I am looking at Gordon Jackson in particular—I have no doubt that he has an interest in that side of things. Consideration of legal aid focuses only on the sea of money being spent on it, rather than on the real issues and problems that arise when people find it impossible to get legal aid, for whatever reason. Invariably, both the legal aid costs, and the legal aid earnings of solicitors and advocates are held to be too high and therefore a total outrage. That makes it too easy to ignore the real problems within a system that puts justice beyond the reach of many people.

The report contains a great many specific recommendations. Michael Matheson will make some points about criminal legal aid, but I will concentrate on the civil side. At present, the stark truth is that if someone is involved in civil proceedings in Scotland today, they had better be very poor or very rich, because those are the only people who are guaranteed access to justice. Even then, if someone is poor, they have to rely on the Scottish Legal Aid Board granting their application in the first place. However, it is when someone on a relatively low or middle income applies for legal aid that the real problem emerges. The number of people in that group has grown steadily over the years, because the increases needed to bring thresholds in line with the various inflation indices have not taken place.

I have a constituent who earns slightly less than £18,000 a year who cannot for all practical purposes be granted legal aid, despite its being warranted on the merits of the case, because her income level has been judged to be too high. On an income of £18,000, she is expected to be able to cover legal fees in the region of £4,000 for just one week. I have another constituent, who has a total aggregate income of £10,977, with a disposable income assessed at £5,998, who has been asked to contribute £1,124 to legal aid.

It does not take somebody of high intellect to realise that, in those circumstances, people's prospects of going to court are completely removed because of their low income. It cannot be right that that happens, as it does far too often.

Clearly, the inquiry was bedevilled by the same paucity of information as the consultation on "Access to Justice" in 1998. I refer particularly to paragraph 21 of the committee's report, which refers to Scottish Legal Aid Board research about eligibility and take-up. It is an advance that the research is now being done, but it is a pity that years of parliamentary questions, not to mention the identification of the problem in submissions in 1998, did not motivate action a bit sooner. The inquiry comments specifically on inconsistencies in the treatment of benefits. Again, that is not a new problem—it was raised in the 1998 consultation. I raised it with the then justice minister because of problems that constituents were experiencing. I hope therefore that the Executive responds to the committee's request for proposals on that matter. I also hope that real consideration will be given to the recommendation that the whole of the legal aid set-up—both civil and criminal—be simplified. That is long overdue. I see that even the Minister for Justice thinks so, at least in so far as his quoted evidence in the report suggests.

However, in one sense, none of this is new. In fact, so not new is it that, when I looked back at the SNP's submission to the 1998 "Access to Justice" consultation paper, I found the same general concern and indeed many of the same specific issues that were addressed by this inquiry. There were a great many submissions to that consultation and I suspect that the majority of them were opposed to the general thrust of the consultation and just as concerned as I was about what was happening to civil legal aid.

What was the outcome of that whole consultation procedure? After the consultation period closed, little more was heard of it. The same could be asked about the consultation prior to that, in 1993, where an entire procedure was undertaken and then nothing happened. I very much hope that the response to this inquiry, when it is finalised, is different. What the minister has said today is very much welcome, as are the increased limits and the upratings that have been announced. That is a significant shift, and it is evidence of the strength of the committee system in the Parliament that we have achieved it.

However, I have one concern about the minister's comments on the availability of solicitors who are prepared to do civil legal aid. I have had a conversation with a prominent small firm in Glasgow that does a great deal of civil legal aid work. I was told in no uncertain terms that, without an increase in the fees in the next 12 months, the firm would simply bail out of civil legal aid altogether. I suspect that that will be mirrored throughout Scotland.

On the previous consultations—here we are again—it is all very well to identify the problems every four or five years; the real achievement will be when something is done about them.