 The next item of business is a statement by Ash Regan on action by legal aid solicitors. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions and I call on Ash Regan minister if he would make your statement. I have been asked to make this statement regarding the current action being taken by legal aid solicitors in the context of COP26 and I am happy to do so. I want to start by commending the work that justice organisations have undertaken in planning and preparing for a safe and secure COP26 event and that proportionate and effective approach is continuing now that the summit has started. I note and I share the concerns expressed regarding the decision taken by many criminal defence solicitors not to participate in custody courts taking place during the period of the COP26 summit. That action withdraws support for persons in custody due to criminal activity associated with the summit itself and also for existing clients of the solicitors in custody for non-COP26 related activity. Duty officers are unable to act for clients with name solicitors unless expressly asked to do so by that defendant. The Scottish Bar Association confirmed on Saturday 30 October immediately before the start of the conference that many local solicitors would withdraw with immediate effect from the general legal aid duty scheme for non-COP26 cases during the period of the conference and potentially beyond it. That was done without providing the normal notice period to withdraw from the existing legal aid duty scheme. I turn to the issue around COP26 custody arrangements. Proposals for a generous package of enhanced legal aid fees for COP26 related cases were developed by a working group, comprised of representatives of the solicitor profession, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. That group submitted proposals for the enhanced funding package. That was then approved by Scottish ministers without any amendment. Subsequent proposals were also put forward for enhanced fees for non-COP26 cases in weekend courts. Those were also approved. Based on the estimated additional levels of custody cases that have been identified by Police Scotland, the total potential value of the enhanced package to the profession in legal aid fees over the period of the conference was up to £3.5 million. The UK Government representatives subsequently then confirmed that they would only cover costs up to a maximum of around half of that, so an estimated of about £1.8 million. However, the Scottish Government has committed to underwriting that difference. Collaborative efforts were therefore made in advance to provide and agree a generous enhanced package of legal aid fees to support the work of solicitors during the COP26 conference. At no time during those discussions was there any indication that there was an intention to boycott the summit. It is disappointing and concerning that a large number of local solicitors indicated immediately before the summit that they would boycott the enhanced legal aid fees package. The decision was also taken to boycott weekend courts, including withdrawing support for solicitors own clients. I have seen some accounts on social media that there was an expectation to work in those courts without additional payment, and that is not an accurate reflection of the position. We now face a situation where, in addition to boycotting COP26 business and weekend custody courts, the profession will also boycott court duty for those courts, which would continue to operate as business as usual during the summit. For those courts, solicitors have indicated that they will attend for their own clients. I share the concerns around the impact of the action on defendants and on the smooth running of the courts during this time. Police Scotland has confirmed that it will take a proportionate approach to policing throughout the time of the conference, including in response to protests, ensuring that the rights to peaceful assembly and to protest are met. However, it is acknowledged that there may be an increase in arrests and associated cases in police custody and custody courts during the conference. Those courts will be supported by those solicitors who have agreed to continue to support the duty schemes. The Public Defence Solicitor's Office and the Solicitor's Contact Line will provide support for police station duty. Based on current estimates of worst case scenarios, we are reassured that the necessary mitigating measures are in place for those courts dealing with COP26-related cases during the summit. I am very grateful to those who are supporting this work and making a contribution to demonstrating Scotland's ability to host such an important international gathering of delegates and protesters. Turning to the impact on the day-to-day business, I am grateful to justice partners who have worked together to agree and implement mitigation actions that aim to minimise the impact on defendants and the smooth running of the courts. In particular, early identification of those who need representation, greater use of technology for virtual representation and flexible court scheduling are among the tools that will be used. Continuous monitoring will be undertaken in order that, if necessary, adjustments are needed, they can be made. However, the greatest risk is to those that may appear unrepresented, many of whom will have vulnerabilities associated with poor mental health or addictions and will do everything that we can to reduce that risk. Correspondence received from local bar associations indicated that the main reasons for the boycott did not relate specifically to the enhanced fee package approved and made available to solicitors for COP26, but in fact to wider unhappiness within the profession about legal aid fees in general and the sustainability of the legal profession. That is despite significant investment being made into the legal profession. I agreed a general uplift of 3 per cent to all legal aid fees in 2019-20. In December 2020, we confirmed a further 5 per cent increase across all legal aid fees for 2021-22 and a commitment to a further 5 per cent increase on top of that in 2022-23. In addition, we acknowledged the pressures faced by the legal profession as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic. We agreed with the profession the allocation of £9 million in direct funding to legal aid solicitors this year. The first element of that funding was directed to those firms that had demonstrated a loss of income during the pandemic, with the remainder allocated to all eligible firms to support the legal aid-funded profession's participation in the Covid-19 justice recover, renew and transform programme. In addition, £1 million has been allocated over two years to support firms with the cost of hiring new trainees to participate in legal aid-funded work. That is a good example of us working with the profession on practical measures to strengthen capacity. In response to the decisions on boycotting, I wrote to the presidents of both the Law Society and the SSBA on 22 October, setting out my concerns but also my willingness to continue to engage with the profession ahead of the conference. I met with both presidents on Monday, 25 October, and the cabinet secretary and I met with the Law Society president on Tuesday, 26 October. The presidents confirmed that, even if further adjustments were made to the specific Covid-19 crop-26 package, that would not guarantee the participation of local bar associations. That is concerning, and we must continue to focus on how we can work together in future to try to avoid similar situations. The request from the profession is for an immediate, substantial and permanent increase to all legal aid fees, which, of course, is in addition to the already agreed 13.6 per cent over three years. We have asked the Law Society and the SSBA to quantify in detail the scale of the ask. Just by way of illustration for the chamber, each 1 per cent increase in legal aid fees equates to around £1.25 million each year. We need clarity from the profession on the scale of the ask, but also on how that investment on top of the resources that we have already committed will deliver genuine improved capacity and support for those who rely on our justice systems. In our programme for government, we committed to engage with the legal professionals and other stakeholders to review the legal aid system and to introduce a legal aid reform bill in this Parliament, ensuring that that system is flexible, easy to access and meets the needs of those who use it. In October, we published a public consultation on reform of legal services regulation. We value the work that legal aid petitioners and the wider legal profession undertake. We remain committed to working with them to consider what challenges may be required to the statutory framework to protect consumer interests and to promote a flourishing legal sector. I know that there have been reports of an incident at Edinburgh Sheriff Court last weekend, and I know that that has been subject of debate on social media. I welcome the joint statement that was released by the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service and the Edinburgh Bar Association yesterday. The running of the courts and the day-to-day operation of court buildings is a matter for the senior judiciary and Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment beyond directing members to the correspondence that has already been published. In summary, I share the concerns about the current removal of services by legal aid solicitors. Our priority is to ensure the safety and security of the COP26 event, while also ensuring that people are able to lawfully express their views and have their rights upheld and ensure that those who require legal aid receive it. Justice agencies are prepared, including for any criminal activity that arises during the event. I remain committed to working with the profession on the future sustainability of legal aid and meeting the needs of those who rely on it to uphold their rights. Sadly, a statement that will go down like a bag of sick with Scotland's criminal defence fraternity on listening to it, which pins the blame for the current dispute solely on them, one that accepts no responsibility whatsoever for what are clearly deteriorating relations between our legal sector and the SNP Government. The incident at Edmishare of Court this weekend did prompt serious concerns. Of course, I am pleased that constructive talks have been held since then, but it called into question the fundamental right of the accused to confidential legal advice, which, near the state, the police nor the courts can ever interfere with. Scotland's solicitors are the vital cogs in our wheel of justice. They work with nothing but the highest level of professionalism, and they do not take disruptive action for no reason or for the fun of it. With more than 50,000 court cases backlogged, on-going disputes over legal aid, which has been chronically underfunded for many years and recruitment problems in the sector, it is clear to everyone except the minister that Scotland faces an immediate crisis in our legal sector. Why has only £2 million of the £9 million promised of the legal aid resilience fund actually been paid to firms? That is exactly the sort of money that they need to survive. Based on today's attack on our hard-working solicitors, let me ask that I presume that the minister does not agree with the President of Glasgow's Bar Association who says that defence practitioners are always an afterthought of this Government. Before calling the minister to reply, I should of course have asked members who wish to make a pose a question in the statement given to press the request of speak buttons now, and there will be around 20 minutes for this question and answer session minister to respond to Mr Greene. On one of the points—obviously, there are a few points that are raised by the member—the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service and the Edinburgh Bar Association have issued that joint statement following the incident that took place on the weekend, and STS has confirmed that solicitors who are attending court to take instructions, provide advice and represent their clients are essential to court business and that their full access has been and will continue to be provided to court buildings and their clients that are held in custody. Ultimately, the matters raised are for the independent judiciary in courts and not with the Scottish ministers, but I just wanted to respond to the point that Jamie Greene had raised on that. In terms of the legal aid budget, the member will of course know and understand that it is a demand-led budget and expenditure is regularly above the budget, and sometimes it is also below the budget. Last year was obviously an extraordinary year, and that spend was below budget, but next year we are obviously fully expecting it to be above that budget. I would say to the member as well that substantial investment in the terms of funding has been put into legal aid, which I think represents the fact that this Government wants to invest and is very interested in supporting legal aid practitioners. If the Presiding Officer will allow me, I will just detail what those are. Across the board increase in fees, which amounts to 13.6 per cent over three years, £1 million to support the cost of traineeships to address those capacity issues that had been raised with me, and £9 million in direct Covid resilience and recovery funding to support legal aid solicitors, and that is a total package of £20 million that is in the process of being completely delivered. On top of that, we have a fee reform package on the criminal side. It is not yet progressed, but that is for fee reforms, which will be an increase of 16.6 per cent. On top of that, again, we have the COP26 package, which is worth up to £3.5 million. This level of funding speaks for itself. It shows that the Government is listening, it shows that the Government is wanting to respond to legal aid practitioners, that we value their work and we are investing in that work. In the case of the COP26 package, that amount of £3.5 million, only £1.8 million of it is going to be covered by the UK Government, which of course is led by the Conservatives. That demonstrates the willingness of the Scottish Government to listen and act, and of course, as usual, to go above and beyond what is done by the UK Government. I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement and indeed for agreeing to give a statement today. The Scottish Labour Party supports the campaign by criminal defence lawyers for an improvement in the criminal legal aid rates, which have faced real-term cuts over many years, and the minister will be aware of the anger in the profession. The Criminal Justice Committee has been hearing evidence about the crisis in the criminal defence sector, with more experienced criminal defence agents moving to other parts of the profession, at a time when there is a huge increase in the number of criminal cases due to the backlog created by the pandemic. There are more than 25 per cent fewer firms who are registered for criminal legal aid now than there were 10 years ago. During the pandemic, a further 10 per cent fewer firms were claiming legal aid fees. I appreciate what the minister has said about the unusual circumstances, and it may be that that is partly due to cases not proceeding. However, the minister will be aware that there has been an almost £1.5 billion cut in legal aid budgets since 2007, so, while she is correct in saying that there have been some announcements of increases recently, that does not in any way compensate. Does the minister accept that we need to recruit more lawyers to do criminal legal aid work, given the thousands of outstanding trials? Will she come forward with a plan that recognises that we need immediate long-term increases in the payments for some types of criminal legal aid cases? There are constraints on public finances, which I am sure the member would accept due to a decade of austerity from Westminster. Despite those constraints, Scottish ministers have maintained our resourcing of legal aid in Scotland, and we have not cut its availability. It is a demand-led budget, and all those who are eligible will continue to benefit from it. I will correct the record if I am wrong, but I believe that 75 per cent of Scotland's population are in fact eligible for legal aid in Scotland. It is one of the leading jurisdictions for legal aid at the moment. We are continuing to invest in it. I accept that there is discontent in the profession. I believe that I addressed that in my speech. I have spent a considerable amount of time engaging with the representatives of the legal profession in what we would consider to be good faith in order to listen to what the profession has to say and to try to work constructively to address their concerns. Obviously, some of those concerns are about fee levels, so I will repeat the money that has been invested recently. In 2019, that was a 3 per cent across the board rise in fees. In 2020, that was 5 per cent, and then we have committed to a further 5 per cent next year. However, I take on board the tone that the member has asked the question about the sustainability of legal aid going forward. We obviously had the Martin Evans review. The member will no doubt be aware of that. We have also set up the payment advisory panel, and that was to look and grapple with those questions about how we modernise legal aid, how we make it sustainable, how we address capacity issues and so on. The member will know especially to do with the Covid backlog. We have the RRT programme, which we do not have time to go into now, but we are also bringing forward a legal aid reform bill in the lifetime of this Parliament, and with a view to improving access to justice—which I know will be of interest to the member—a better overall working of the justice system, to make it easier for consumers to use and to access it and to ensure sustainability, which is so key. I have allowed a certain degree of latitude for front-bench exchanges, but to have any hope of getting everybody in who wishes to put a question, I would ask for succinct questions and succinct answers. I call Audrey Nicol to be followed by Russell Finlay. I thank the minister for her statement and for the letters sent to the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, which underline the extent of engagement that the Scottish Government has had with the sector. I ask the minister to outline what constituted the enhanced benefits package that is now the subject of disagreement among legal aid solicitors. A generous package of enhanced legal aid fees for COP26-related cases were developed by a working group and representatives of the solicitor professional on that group and the Scottish legal aid board. The proposals for the enhanced funding package were made by the Law Society of Scotland. They were then costed by SLAB prior to submission to Scottish ministers and then the package was accepted and approved without any amendment. The package included some very significant enhancements to the fees that were normally paid for duty work and for cases arising from custody appearances. For example, the fee for any case that the duty solicitor pleads guilty on the accused behalf was increased from £75.71 to £578.61, where a plea of not guilty is tendered and further work will be required under summary criminal legal aid to see any COP26 case to conclusion over the weeks or months after COP26, the fee was more than doubled from £524.53 to £1157.22. The fee applies to duty and to name solicitors. I have significantly more detail on that, but I can tell the Presiding Officer does not want me to go into any further detail at this point. I have written a very detailed letter in response to the committee's request for information, which I will send to the committee today, and that includes much more detail on the question that the member has raised. Those boycotts will have an impact on witnesses and victims. I note that the minister's statement makes no mention of victims. What consultation has the minister had with victims groups? That is a very fair question. My officials are working with all our justice partners to ensure that those who need legal advice can receive it and that disruption to the courts is minimal. I will again take this opportunity to thank those partners for their hard work over the weekend. I am assured that there is sufficient cover to provide legal advice to anyone who is in custody who requires it, but that capacity will be monitored at all times. Justice partners, including the duty solicitors and the judiciary, are primed to assist those individuals in any way that they can. Following on from the previous question, what measures are in place to support vulnerable defendants and witnesses during Covid-19 and the current action of legal aid solicitors? Officials have been in close contact with our justice partners, and all steps are being taken to provide advice to those who require it. A combination of things such as early identification of those who are likely to need representation but do not currently have it, and the use of technology for online representation and flexible court scheduling will play a part in ensuring that those vulnerable defendants are supported as much as possible. My officials are working hard with all those partners to ensure that anyone who needs legal advice will receive it and that disruption to the courts is minimal. I would like to acknowledge that some progress has been made since 2019, but does the minister accept that we have reached a crisis point within the legal aid profession? We are losing experience lawyers from the profession, and it will be unfortunately exacerbated by a huge backlog in cases, long hours, poor pay and a group of lawyers feeling badly let down and badly treated compared to other government lawyers. Does the minister agree that there is a desperate need to resolve this once and for all? I think that there is a need to resolve this. We do not want to be having this situation going forward, but I would say that, as my response to your colleague, I have spent considerable time trying my best to engage with the profession. What we are seeing is that there are some quite disparate and asked from different types of the profession, so it is trying to cut through that and try to work with the profession in order to address that. I would say that there are other packages of reform on the table that may be of interest to the member and also to the profession. We have legislation for criminal fee reforms. They have been ready to be laid since January, and that legislation did not proceed due to concerns from the profession that there are cost-neutral. I would like to take that opportunity to say that they are not cost-neutral and that a detailed paper has been shared with representatives of the legal profession to clarify that the original proposals have been updated. They include the 3 per cent increase for all legal aid fees and the 5 per cent increase, and provision has been made to reinstate waiting time, which I know was an issue that was of interest. The total increase that is delivered in that package is 16.6 per cent, so I think that it would be financially beneficial for the profession to look at those reforms and that we progress those reforms. I am willing to listen to any proposal that the profession makes to me, and I will consider it. I make that offer in good faith. I welcome the minister's statement and I share her worry for those who left unrepresented. The minister probably alluded to this in her answer to Pauline McNeill. I want to ask if the minister could give us an indication of the Government's vision for legal aid reform going forward. In our programme for government, we committed to engage with legal professionals and other stakeholders to review the legal aid system and to introduce a legal aid reform bill in this Parliament to ensure that that system is flexible, that it is easy to access, and that it meets the needs of those who use it. We consulted on that reform in 2019, and we have stated our willingness to take forward the recommendations that will deliver that enhanced system of legal aid across Scotland and our commitment that it will retain a demand-led fund and it will remain that wide scope of actions that we have at the moment. However, particular consideration will be given to how more targeted and planned interventions can support user need, align with those Government priorities that we have identified and assist in legal aid being rightly recognised as an invaluable public service. Liam McArthur, to be followed by Christine Graf. I also thank the minister for advance sight of her statement, access to justice relies on access to solicitors, but this is becoming increasingly challenging in some parts of the country, notably in our islands. With that in mind, will the minister look again at the support for travel that was cut by the Government in 2011, and will she also agree to meet with lawyers in my constituency to discuss this and wider concerns about the potential for legal aid deserts developing in some parts of the country? I thank the member for that question. In my exchange with Pauline McNeill, he would have heard that we have amended the criminal fee reform package that we were discussing, and in that we have reinstated the waiting times, so in terms of the travel times, I will commit to look at that for the member. I would like to offer the member if he wants to have a meeting to discuss that in more detail, I will be happy to do that. I note that correspondence from the local bar association states that this is more to do with wider unhappiness about legal aid fees generally. That was true even 20 years ago when I was in practice as a civil legal aid practitioner, so with reference to the proposed legal aid reform bill, can I put a plea in for my former colleagues why I appreciate why the bulk of the bill goes for criminal legal aid, where there are threats to the majority of the public engaged in civil disputes? If I look at the bill, could I put a plea in to look at the balance? Yes, I take that on board very much. In the portfolio split that the cabinet secretary and I share, I work on the civil side, so that is not lost on me at all. Where the demand for legal aid has reduced, the Scottish Government has committed to working with the legal profession to bring forward those reforms for the legal aid and the legal aid reform bill. That will be in the term of this Parliament. However, those reforms do not preclude more immediate adjustments to legal aid regulations where they are justified. Obviously, in the exchanges that I have had so far, it shows that it is willing the civil government to work on that and to work with the profession and to listen to any proposals that come forward. I thank the member for that question. I will certainly bear that in mind when we bring forward that bill. Stephen Kerr, to be followed by Maggie Chapman. Nothing underlines the Government's, indeed, the minister's chronically poor relationship with Scotland's criminal defence lawyers, like the response reported on the Law Society's website to the minister's letter of the 22nd of October. Tone deaf, whining, a slap in the face, a patronising condescending disgrace. Those are just some of the comments. The Lord Advocate said this morning that the huge court backlog will take years to address, with the biggest impact on women and girls who are victims of serious assault and abuse. Is it not time for the Scottish Government to work with the legal sector to develop a sustainable criminal defence workforce strategy? I am not sure if the member has been here through the entire statement where I have been explaining all the work that has gone on behind the scenes by myself, by my officials and by the cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary and I met twice with the legal representatives last week. That is part of regular engagement on our part with the legal profession in order to try to work in good faith to resolve some of those issues. As I indicated in my statement, I have accepted all the proposals from the Law Society with regard to the COP26 duty and the weekend custody courts. We continue to offer that engagement and I have written back again to the profession to clarify the ask in order that we may continue that engagement in order to hopefully reach a solution. The fact that defendants could possibly be in a situation in which they are without representation is appalling. One of the foundations of our justice system must be the right to representation when needed. However, the situation is the consequence of long-term underfunding and insufficient support of our legal aid system. I want to express my solidarity with solicitors who are taking the action because of that and thank them for the vital work that they have done often in very difficult circumstances. The minister stated that she and her officers— We have a question, please. We are really at the end of time. Would you do everything possible to reduce the risk of defendants appearing, especially if they have vulnerabilities associated with mental health and addictions? Can she detail what those provisions and actions will entail, particularly over the next 10 days? I can. We have been working to ensure that those who need that legal assistance will receive it. We have a number of mitigations that the courts will be supported by, so those are solicitors who have agreed to continue in the duty schemes. They will, of course, be available. We also have the PDSO, which is the public defence solicitors available. We have the solicitor contact line, and they will support police station duty. We are going to be implementing early identification of those who need representation, greater use of technology for virtual representation and flexible court scheduling. I would just say to the member to reassure that we will monitor that and make any necessary adjustments as they are required. I would also like to conclude by saying that I am so grateful to those who are supporting this work. To ask the minister to clarify that, as well as the legal reform bill, what other steps are being taken to ensure the viability of legal aid in the long term. Secondary legislation was introduced in the summer to try to work with the profession on that, but, in terms of the long term, I have made commitments already in the chamber that we intend to retain the scope of legal aid and ensure that it continues to be a demand-led budget. However, we have the legal aid reform bill that will be coming forward in the life time of this Parliament. We are ensuring that we want to make the system easier for users to use. We want to streamline the justice system so that it works better for everyone. We want to address the issues of capacity and sustainability, and part of that will be funding. I assure the member that we are looking at this. We are live to these issues, and I am sure that she will be interested in the legal aid reform bill when it comes to the Parliament. Relevant to today's statement, in the middle of the statement, and after lead Opposition benches have sat down, the members of the Criminal Justice Committee received a six-page letter with detail subject to the content of today's speech. First of all, it would have been more helpful if that letter had been distributed before the statement so that the members had the opportunity to ask the minister about the content therein. One of which I think would have afforded members the respect, not just of the committee but of the entire Parliament and the wider public to review the content of the letter in advance of today's statement. Secondly, it also makes erroneous assertions in its opening paragraphs, which we may have been able to challenge the minister on. Can I seek your advice on how we can further guide and direct ministers of the Government to the standards and processes in which this Parliament would be more acceptable to respect the amount of information that members have in advance for statements not during or indeed after them? If the minister would like to respond if the error today was a tardy, erroneous one or an intentional one? Can I respond to the contribution that the member has just made? Obviously, the chair is not responsible for the timing of ministerial letters to members. The member asked, I think, about what opportunities might be available to look at the issues raised in the letter that I have not seen. Obviously, there will be many opportunities open to the member and to the other members to raise those issues directly with the minister through the usual channels. I hope that the member feels that that will be something that he would wish to look into and take advantage of. I now move on to the next item of business. I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face covering should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.