Chamber
Plenary, 13 Mar 2002
13 Mar 2002 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Legal Aid Inquiry
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 important issues, some of which have been covered by the minister, which I welcome.
I want to pursue two main areas, the first of which is eligibility for legal aid. The other is the quality of the product, which relates to matters such as fees and quality assurance.
The committee heard a lot of evidence about widening access to legal aid. Collective action by communities does not seem to be possible at the moment. Communities must nominate one person to pursue the case. Communities should be encouraged to work together and could perhaps get help when they promote causes in which they are interested.
The tribunal plays an important part in our lives, whether it is to do with employment, discrimination, housing or whatever. However, people do not get legal aid when they contest a case in a tribunal. That is a serious lack in the system. I recognise that the budget is limited, but access to justice is a basic point in a civilised society and we must work hard to ensure that people have that access.
The minister, if I understood him correctly, rejected the idea of extending the provision of legal aid to cases in the small claims court. I do not know enough about such matters to know why the idea was rejected; it seems to me that it might be sensible to consider giving people legal aid for small claims cases.
The report contains some interesting examples from the Law Society of Scotland and the Glasgow Bar Association that illustrate how people whom everyone would consider to be pretty poor still have to contribute considerably to their legal aid case. The matter is complicated by the issue of benefits and that needs to be simplified. I welcome what the minister said about getting the capital figures changed, but I think that we also have to consider the income figures to help people who are in poorer circumstances.
Quality assurance is necessary and we must think seriously about how that is to be delivered. Some people—from one of the CABx, I think—raised the issue of how the client can get an idea of whether a lawyer is any good or not. Some information in that regard would be useful, as a bad lawyer can lose a case with no trouble at all. It is important that people have confidence in the lawyer who is working for them.
A related issue is that there is a great deal of evidence that the fees are simply inadequate. Some firms manage to provide a service within the fees, but they do so only by using inexperienced and low-paid staff. They complain that the fees are such that a lot of their support staff and other important people leave the firm—I think that the Glasgow Bar Association in particular said that. In rural areas, someone might have to travel a long way to obtain a precognition. That would cost a lot of money and the fees do not cover that. There is a theoretical risk—I think that it might also be a practical risk—that some people's cases are not as well prepared as they should be because the lawyers could not afford to go and interview some of the more remote witnesses.
Social welfare law is a jungle and most lawyers know nothing about it. We have to encourage lawyers to understand social welfare law and ensure that there is a network of people throughout the country who can deal with it. In rural areas, there will inevitably be fewer specialist lawyers than there will be in the big cities.
When I was at Westminster, the issue of fees was raised with me and I was given all sorts of examples of the ways in which solicitors lose out. For example, the fees do not properly cover situations in which sheriff court cases are continued. I ask the minister to consider improving the fees, allied to quality assurance. Lawyers must be paid properly for doing a good job.
The report makes it clear, as did much of the evidence, that there is a need for a full review of the regulations, which are a jungle. They have obviously grown incrementally. The report also makes it clear that there is a need for further review of the whole civil justice system.
There is enough work to keep the ministers and the committee going for many years to come. The issue is important and the report raises many important issues. I hope that the Executive will respond to those issues as well as it can and keep on putting money into the system to try to improve it further. I congratulate the committee on its report.
I want to pursue two main areas, the first of which is eligibility for legal aid. The other is the quality of the product, which relates to matters such as fees and quality assurance.
The committee heard a lot of evidence about widening access to legal aid. Collective action by communities does not seem to be possible at the moment. Communities must nominate one person to pursue the case. Communities should be encouraged to work together and could perhaps get help when they promote causes in which they are interested.
The tribunal plays an important part in our lives, whether it is to do with employment, discrimination, housing or whatever. However, people do not get legal aid when they contest a case in a tribunal. That is a serious lack in the system. I recognise that the budget is limited, but access to justice is a basic point in a civilised society and we must work hard to ensure that people have that access.
The minister, if I understood him correctly, rejected the idea of extending the provision of legal aid to cases in the small claims court. I do not know enough about such matters to know why the idea was rejected; it seems to me that it might be sensible to consider giving people legal aid for small claims cases.
The report contains some interesting examples from the Law Society of Scotland and the Glasgow Bar Association that illustrate how people whom everyone would consider to be pretty poor still have to contribute considerably to their legal aid case. The matter is complicated by the issue of benefits and that needs to be simplified. I welcome what the minister said about getting the capital figures changed, but I think that we also have to consider the income figures to help people who are in poorer circumstances.
Quality assurance is necessary and we must think seriously about how that is to be delivered. Some people—from one of the CABx, I think—raised the issue of how the client can get an idea of whether a lawyer is any good or not. Some information in that regard would be useful, as a bad lawyer can lose a case with no trouble at all. It is important that people have confidence in the lawyer who is working for them.
A related issue is that there is a great deal of evidence that the fees are simply inadequate. Some firms manage to provide a service within the fees, but they do so only by using inexperienced and low-paid staff. They complain that the fees are such that a lot of their support staff and other important people leave the firm—I think that the Glasgow Bar Association in particular said that. In rural areas, someone might have to travel a long way to obtain a precognition. That would cost a lot of money and the fees do not cover that. There is a theoretical risk—I think that it might also be a practical risk—that some people's cases are not as well prepared as they should be because the lawyers could not afford to go and interview some of the more remote witnesses.
Social welfare law is a jungle and most lawyers know nothing about it. We have to encourage lawyers to understand social welfare law and ensure that there is a network of people throughout the country who can deal with it. In rural areas, there will inevitably be fewer specialist lawyers than there will be in the big cities.
When I was at Westminster, the issue of fees was raised with me and I was given all sorts of examples of the ways in which solicitors lose out. For example, the fees do not properly cover situations in which sheriff court cases are continued. I ask the minister to consider improving the fees, allied to quality assurance. Lawyers must be paid properly for doing a good job.
The report makes it clear, as did much of the evidence, that there is a need for a full review of the regulations, which are a jungle. They have obviously grown incrementally. The report also makes it clear that there is a need for further review of the whole civil justice system.
There is enough work to keep the ministers and the committee going for many years to come. The issue is important and the report raises many important issues. I hope that the Executive will respond to those issues as well as it can and keep on putting money into the system to try to improve it further. I congratulate the committee on its report.
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...