Hansard

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 of us, which should not be underestimated. The Justice 1 Committee is to be congratulated on persevering with the inquiry. What we have heard from the Minister for Justice today proves that the inquiry was worth while, as he made some positive announcements.

We all agree that access to justice is fundamental in a parliamentary democracy. That means that there must be some state funding for those who are genuinely unable to assist themselves, not only in civil cases but in criminal cases.

Although, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said, legal aid can only be demand-led and a strict upper limit cannot be set, criteria and standards must be set so that we have a scientific way of calculating the cost to the public purse. We must have standards and ensure that there is fairness. The system must be easy to access and it must be easy for somebody to establish what their contribution might be. One of the issues that the report has uncovered is that when somebody is embarking on an interdict or using the law to their advantage it is not always easy to establish what it will cost them. Our legal aid system does not currently meet all those criteria. The report hits some of the right notes on that and the minister has made some very positive announcements today.

I will make several specific points. The first is on tribunals. We are familiar with a range of tribunals, which were primarily set up to be informal settings in which to decide on legal matters such as employment issues. The Executive has already taken a welcome step by recognising that there must be some advice by way of assistance for employment tribunals on more complex issues. That needs to be developed. In my former life as a trade union official, I represented individual trade unionists at employment tribunals. I can vouch for the fact that they are no longer informal forums but cover complex aspects of the law. When someone does not have access to a legal representative or a trade union, we must ensure that their best interests are protected.

My second point is on the idea of a public defenders office. I am not proposing to have a debate on that this afternoon; I know that a full paper has been produced that examines whether that would provide value for money for the public purse. My reservation about a public defenders system is that it would not allow people the choice of solicitor. That is why I have reservations about proceeding much further with that, although it is important to examine the issue.

Many members have talked about the importance of civil legal aid. I think that the report's biggest success is in uncovering some of the things that have been going on in relation to that. Sometimes we take the view that criminal law is more important than civil law, but that is not always the case. Civil cases, such as divorce cases and defamation cases, can be just as important as criminal cases and affect people in similar ways. If we are taking the view that there should be a systematic review of criminal legal aid, in which we increase the thresholds in line with inflation, I do not see why civil legal aid should be left out.

I will develop the points that Maureen Macmillan made. We should consider the very successful bill that she initiated on domestic abuse—now the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001. Women who are victims of domestic abuse will have to apply for an interdict under civil procedures. We must ensure that they are not disadvantaged because they cannot afford to do so. I cannot see the logic in the way in which different benefits are treated. Constituents have come to me who were unaware, when they applied for a harassment order, that they would have to make a higher contribution of about £500 because their incapacity benefit is treated as income. I do not understand why we cannot make uniform our approach to benefits. That approach has a disadvantageous effect on people who want to use the useful laws that the Parliament has been involved in providing.

We have established this afternoon that it is important that the system should be transparent. Roseanna Cunningham made a point about middle-income earners. People who have a legitimate case of defamation or another important legal case should not be disadvantaged because they are middle-income earners. We must ensure that when people walk through the door of a solicitor's office, it is easy to understand what the legal fees will be and what the process will cost. I know that that is sometimes impossible, but the ordinary citizen would argue that it is not always easy to establish what the process will cost. We must give that matter some attention.

In his evidence to the committee, Professor Paterson talked about the lack of co-ordination between advice that is given by salaried lawyers in community settings and that which is given under the legal aid system by lawyers in private practice. That point should be developed. Because all that advice is provided for out of the public purse, we must ensure that the system is joined up.

The report is good and the Executive's response has been positive. There is further work to do. I welcome the work on which the Justice 1 Committee has embarked.