Hansard

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 discriminated against specific groups in society. One result of the committee's commitment to access to justice was that, with the backing of the Executive, we put the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001 on the statute book.

As Roseanna Cunningham said, the evidence that we took for the bill made us all aware of the shortcomings of the legal aid system. Indeed, as a reporter on the bill, I remember visiting SLAB and discussing that issue. SLAB had decided to pilot a scheme to extend repayment periods for civil legal aid. In its deliberations, the committee was concerned that the very people who would benefit from the new act could not afford to access it. Pauline McNeill raised that issue when we debated the bill in the chamber.

It is no wonder that we were concerned. In 1983, the lower capital limit for eligibility was set at £3,000 and it has remained the same since. In 1993, the Conservative Government changed the eligibility rules so that the number of people who could access full legal aid was cut considerably. I remember the outcry and consternation that that caused at Women's Aid. We realised that many women seeking interdicts against violence would be disadvantaged. The need for solicitors to take on the financial risk of emergency applications meant that some agents stopped taking cases. We phoned around law firms to see who was still prepared to do so.

Since 1993, the situation has remained the same for that group of women, which will be expanded as the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001 comes to be used. That is why one of the Justice 1 Committee's priorities is to encourage the Executive to deal quickly with the question of financial eligibility for civil legal aid.

I realise that the Executive has made significant progress in that area and I particularly welcome SLAB's introduction of an extended instalment scheme for repayment of contributions. That scheme has been of considerable benefit to people who could not afford to pay several hundred pounds up front or repay £50 or £60 a month and who would otherwise abandon their case and put the needs of their children before their own safety. I also understand that payment levels can be renegotiated if there is a change in circumstances. The Executive should ensure that that is generally known. SLAB claims that those deferred payments will encourage people to seek legal aid under the urgency provisions, which has been a problem until now, as such applications previously meant asking the solicitor to bear the risk of default. It seems that SLAB will now bear that risk. I ask SLAB to monitor that to see whether there is an increase in the use of urgency provisions. I was pleased to hear the minister say that he will consider the possibility of tapering contributions—that will make a great difference, too.

However, huge anomalies remain in the way that the benefits system dovetails with civil legal aid. That affects not only people who are seeking interdicts, but those who are pursuing personal injury claims, for example. Benefits such as the working families tax credit, which are accessed because of poverty, prevent a person from receiving full legal aid. I realise that the Executive is examining those issues, but I ask the Deputy First Minister when we might expect to hear concrete proposals.

The committee also raised access issues relating to availability of service and quality. I note that SLAB is preparing a report on the distribution of solicitors who offer legal aid and that the Law Society is actively considering how expertise and experience in certain areas of the law can be quality marked. It is important that shortcomings in the provision of legal advice and information are addressed, from deprived urban estates to remote rural communities.

We received mixed evidence on whether fewer firms were offering civil and criminal legal aid services. There seems to be a sense in the legal profession that, because legal aid fees have been static for so long, young solicitors are not attracted to court work or do not stay in it as the financial rewards are elsewhere. The statistics do not show a significant reduction in numbers, but there may be hidden problems relating to distribution or experience. We would welcome more research.

The committee has asked for an evaluation of fixed fees for criminal cases. We had conflicting evidence on how that impacted on solicitors' earnings and the courts, but my feeling is that agents will naturally seek to maximise their earnings where they can in simple cases, given that the fixed fee can curtail their earnings in more complicated cases. That can cause severe congestion in the sheriff court where cases resurface time and again.

Although all those concerns are important, they involve piecemeal changes or the monitoring of projects. I think that the committee and the Executive are looking for a step change in how legal services are delivered in the future. They should be delivered more strategically, more flexibly and with a higher regard to quality and accessibility.

I think that we all await with great anticipation detailed proposals for the development of a community legal service, to see how far it will address problems that the committee has identified. In the meantime, we are aware that the Executive has the same goals as the committee and await with interest the results of the research and negotiations on legal aid that are in train.