 The next item of business is a statement by Annabelle Ewing on a review of legal aid. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Annabelle Ewing, 10 minutes please minister. At the outset I would wish to draw members' attention to my entry in the register of interests where they will find that I am a solicitor by profession that I do hold a current practising certificate, albeit that I am not currently practising. I am grateful for the opportunity to inform Parliament today of action that this Government is taking in respect of the legal aid system in Scotland. In the programme for government we made a commitment to commence engagement this year with the legal profession and others to identify specific measures to reform Scotland's system of legal aid, maintaining access to public funding for legal advice and representation in both civil and criminal cases alongside measures to expand access to alternative methods of resolving disputes. Publicly funded legal assistance plays an absolutely vital role in providing citizens with the ability to enforce their rights and in upholding social justice. In Scotland we have maintained wide access to legal assistance across both criminal and civil cases, notwithstanding budgetary pressures. We have a demand-led system with a high eligibility rate, meaning that all who apply and are eligible will receive publicly funded legal assistance. The system is founded on the Legal Aid Scotland Act 1986, a statute that predates devolution, human rights legislation and other major reforms to the justice system, and which is now over 30 years old. It has appropriately been subject to 30 years of updating to ensure that it reflects current needs both in human rights terms and to meet the social justice ambitions of Government. Legal Aid adjustments are a regular feature of the Justice Committee workload, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of that committee past and present for their engagement and in ensuring that we maintain a strong legal aid system. However, as a result, we have a rather complex web of regulations that can be difficult even for seasoned legal practitioners to navigate at times. The commitment in the programme for government reflects our view that the time is right to review the legal aid system in Scotland, with a view to taking forward a programme of future reforms of the system. As I mentioned earlier, publicly funded legal assistance is an important aspect of improving lives and tackling inequalities. There are a range of perspectives on how the legal aid system might be improved for those who need this public service and for those who deliver it. Therefore, it is important that the wide range of interests in the legal aid system play a part in shaping future reforms. I therefore intend to establish an independent review group to consider the legal aid system in 21st century Scotland and how best to respond to the changing justice, social, economic, business and technological landscape within which a modern and flexible legal aid system should operate. Indeed, the programme of justice reform in Scotland in the past few years has been significant and is shaping a much more modern and progressive civil and criminal justice system. Importantly, that includes a greater focus on the needs of individuals engaging with the justice system. Hence, the legal aid system must keep pace with the reforms and developments in the justice sector. A review of legal aid is timely, and I note that both the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates are supportive of a review being taken forward. I note, too, that some of the parties that are represented here today also had a manifesto commitment to look at our system of legal aid, and so I hope that our planned review will be welcomed by members across the chamber today. Legal aid is a complex and technical subject, but it matters to individuals, especially those who are most vulnerable. Therefore, it is vital that the direction and leadership of the independent review reflects that. Presiding Officer, I am delighted to announce today that Martin Evans, chief executive of the Carnegie Trust, has agreed to chair the review. He brings a wealth of experience, having previously been the CEO of Citizens Advice Scotland, a director of the Scottish Consumer Council and Consumer Focus Scotland and a director of shelter. He will be assisted by an expert adviser, Alan Patterson, Professor of Law at Strathclyde University and director of the Centre for Professional Legal Studies. Professor Patterson has extensive knowledge of legal aid systems in different jurisdictions around the world. Martin Evans will also be assisted by a review panel. We are finalising the panel with the chair, and I am delighted to confirm the following panel members. Colin Lancaster, chief executive of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, Janis Scott QC, a highly respected QC with interests in all forms of child law and the chair of the Faculty of Advocates Family Law Association, Brian McConachy QC, who has conducted many high-profile trials and appeals during his time as principal advocate deput and now is involved in a wide range of serious and regulatory crime cases. Lindsay McPhee, who is a criminal defence solicitor advocate and past president of the Glasgow Bar Association, Jackie McRae, who is a civil legal aid lawyer, specialising in family law and a former member of the council of the Law Society of Scotland. Susan McPhee is head of policy and public affairs assistance vice-scotland. Deputy Chief Constable Ian Livingstone of Police Scotland works across the justice sector. He currently sits on the Scottish Sensing Council and was a member of Lord Barnaby's post corroboration safeguards review. Professor Fran Wasoff is a Professor of Family Policies at the University of Edinburgh and is a member of the Scottish Civil Justice Council's Access to Justice Committee. Alison MacKinnon's OBE is a former MSP and Justice Polk's person and has an extensive knowledge of the governance of Scotland and its public and third sectors and was awarded an OBE for public service in 2013. I hope that members will agree that the review panel represents the broad range of interests that are needed to review the legal aid system. The review will have the following high-level remit, legal aid in the 21st century, how best to respond to the changing justice, social, economic business and technological landscape. The review needs to consider those who are engaging with the system, both the end-users and the solicitors and advocates who are providing their services. At the same time, it is clear that the legal aid system should be efficient and comply with the principles of best value and public service reform. It will be for the review group to set out its full programme of activities and the chair has already begun preliminary work to do so. I anticipate that that work will include engagement with a full range of stakeholders with an interest in this work and, indeed, I would encourage everyone who is involved with the legal aid system to engage with the review at every opportunity. The independent chair will lead the review and present his final report to ministers within a year. Ministers will respond to the review's recommendations in due course. In establishing the review, it is important to recognise that the legal aid system in Scotland has many strengths. We have maintained the wide range of scope of civil legal aid in Scotland despite a challenging financial context, a fact that is applauded by our international legal aid colleagues. We have maintained generous eligibility criteria. We continue to operate a demand-led system, and everyone who is eligible for legal aid will receive it. Therefore, regardless of budget constraints, no one is turned away. That is in stark contrast to the position in England and Wales where, regrettably, the amount of civil representation funded through legal aid in England and Wales has fallen by about a third since the commencement of the legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders act 2012. Indeed, a recent Amnesty International report published in October 2016 entitled, Cuts That Hurt, the impact of legal aid cuts in England on access to justice, evidence that, in the area of social welfare law, there had been a 99 per cent reduction in the number of welfare benefits cases in receipt of legal aid funding since the introduction of that legislation. At the same time, legal assistance is no longer available for certain types of family housing and other non-family problems such as welfare reforms. In Scotland, however, I would wish to point out that legal assistance for family housing, welfare and other non-family problems has been maintained. For example, we have maintained access to publicly funded legal assistance for people pursuing contact and residence cases in Scotland, assistance that has in many cases been removed in England and Wales. Presiding Officer, in outlining our proposals for a review today, I think that it is important to also assure colleagues that updates and improvements in the day-to-day operation of the legal aid system will continue to be put forward to ensure the proper functioning of the system. In that regard, I wrote to the Justice Committee on 27 October 2016 detailing my short, medium and long-term plans to improve the legal aid system. In the short term, we will focus on making essential provision for legal aid by means of Scottish statutory instruments in response to new developments, as we did, for example with respect to the introduction of simple procedure. In the medium term, we are developing proposals to streamline and modernise the current system, particularly for those who provide advice, assistance and representation. That response to the proposal set out in the law society paper, legal assistance in Scotland, fit for the 21st century. For example, proposals on certain fee reforms as regard criminal legal assistance have been developed and will be taken to the profession in the near future. Those proposals will seek to adjust the way in which fees are structured to more appropriately reflect the services provided by laws and simplify the ways in which fees can be paid. I look forward to engaging with the profession on that. The review that I have announced today will take a long-term, independent and strategic look at the system of legal aid, including its purpose and the outcomes that we as a society want it to achieve. In conclusion, the review of legal aid that I have announced today offers a timely opportunity to take a strategic, independent and long-term look at our legal aid system to ensure that it is fit for purpose, that it is fair and that Scotland's population can continue to access support when they need it most. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement, and I would allow around 20 minutes for that. Please press your request-to-speak buttons now, and can I say that there are many people who wish to ask a question, and we will not get through them all unless there is a bit of brevity, and could I ask the front-benchers to set that example? Deputy Presiding Officer, I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. Access to justice is one of the most important tenets of a civilised society with the legal aid system fulfilling a crucial duty in that regard. It is, however, a complex, outdated and at times inefficient system that would benefit from simplification and wider reform. As such, and to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society receive the legal assistance that they require, Scottish Conservatives called for a review of the legal aid system in our 2016 manifesto, so today's announcement is certainly welcomed by members on those benches. The minister mentioned the law society's paper, legal assistance in Scotland, fit for the 21st century. This document argues that the justice sector overall has kept track of inflation and other cost drivers, but that has not been the case for legal assistance, meaning that law centres, the advice sector and other front-line services have challenges around funding. In light of those comments, could the minister expand on the proposals for fee reforms to which her statement briefly referred? Further, I understand from the minister's statement that the Scottish Government is finalising the panel members, and we certainly wish those already appointed every success in their task ahead, and I am particularly pleased to welcome the involvement of Alison McInnes, who did great work in the chamber and has a wealth of knowledge and experience, which will no doubt be beneficial to the group. However, can the minister advise if any further addition to the panel will be made, and if so, which sectors will those extra members come from? Finally, the minister mentioned a demand-led system where everyone who is eligible for legal aid receives it. Therefore, can she explain to me why I have a constituent in Fockebers, who is currently out of work, who is severely ill in hospital and whose only income is through benefits, yet his application for legal aid has been denied for divorce proceedings, yet the other party, who is in work, has been given legal aid, and this type of ambiguity and inconsistency causes some concerns with the current system, and I would appreciate her response on that. That was Harley Briefing from Mr Ross, Andy Billion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to give brief answers. In broad brush, in terms of the reference to the Law Society's document and budgetary issues, it is important to say that the allocation of legal aid funding for the legal aid fund itself is the same this year in terms of the draft budget as it was last year, £126.1 million against a backdrop of continuing cuts in the Scottish budget from Westminster. In terms of the fee reform issue that the member raised, I think that he will recall that I wrote to the Justice Committee in quite some detail, and that would be one of our medium-term plans that we intend to bring forward and have been working on that, and we will be discussing that with the legal profession in terms of some elements of criminal work and looking at potential block fee arrangements. In terms of further additional panel members, we have been working with Martin Evans, the chair, and in conjunction with him, those announcements will be made shortly. Of course, absolutely, we are committed to ensuring that there is a proper balance in the review panel to take into account all relevant interests. Finally, the specific case to which the member referred in his list constituency. I obviously, as a minister, cannot comment on individual cases. What I would suggest that the member does, as an MSP, is to invite his constituent to contact the legal aid board to see if there is anything that can be done. Claire Baker Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks also to the minister for an advance copy of the statement. I review into legal aid as welcome, and we wish Martin Evans and the review panel well in the task ahead. I understand the minister's decision to highlight the difference between the scope of civil legal aid in Scotland and the rest of the UK where there are significant cuts, which are having a serious impact on access to justice. However, there are serious concerns in Scotland over the sustainability of the current legal aid system, which the law society says is putting at risk the provision of legal services to some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society and that gaps are developing in provision. It would seem that, in order to address the use of availability of legal aid, more resources would need to go into that provision unless there is the option of more funding that our concerns at the scope could be then limited. Are those options included in the review's remit? I ask the minister if the review is restricted to the current budget parameters. Annabelle Ewing As I stated in an answer to one of Mr Ross's four questions, the funding allocation for the legal aid fund for the coming year is the same as it was last year, £126.1 million. Of course, legal aid is demand-led and therefore it is not a cash-limited budget. Figures that I have seen in some law society documents have a different figure in mind and that includes the administration budget, if you like, for SLAB. That is a different element. We are looking at the legal aid fund itself in terms of our draft budget, which we will be discussing further in Thursday. I need to say that if there is no budget, there is no money for the legal aid fund. We have committed to a wide scope of legal aid. I think that I was trying to give flavour to in my statement, and we will continue to be committed to a wide scope for legal aid. I think that it is absolutely vital that everyone who needs support in terms of accessing legal aid in Scotland is able to get it. The review that I announced today is independent, and it will be up to the chair and his expert and his review panel to engage, to investigate and to discuss. They will do so without fear of favour. Of course, we are having the review in 21st century Scotland in 2017-18, and we are, as a Scottish Government, subject to significant financial constraints in terms of our budgetary settlement from Westminster. I would imagine that that would be a fact known to every single member sitting on that panel. The minister has given an overview of those who will forum the review board, and, in her response to Douglas Ross, she has assured Parliament that the membership will cover a wide range of expertise and issues regarding legal aid. Will she advise if that will include representation from those who work with people who rely on legal aid? Annabelle Ewing? Yes, I did announce in detail the panel members. The member will see that various interests are represented, including in Scotland. It is clear from the review panel that the breadth of expertise and experience is substantial. I am grateful to all the panel members who have agreed to bring their expertise to bear on the important policy review that we have announced today. John Finnie, to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. I thank the minister for the early sight of the statement. The Scottish Green Party welcomed the review, particularly delighted to former colleague Alison McInnes, who is involved. The Scottish Green Party also supports greater use of alternative dispute resolution. That will avoid litigation and avoid prosecution and thereby potentially reduce costs. Access to justice is peppered throughout your statement, and that obviously applies to environmental law, too. Minister, you will know that, in the last session of Parliament, the Scottish Government had a consultation on developments in environmental justice in Scotland. Can we get to the question, please, Mr Finnie? It is about the R-House convention. Will the review cover the R-House convention and remove any dubiety about Scotland's compliance with it? Annabelle Ewing? Well, as I say, the review is independent, and all members are encouraged to make their views known to the review panel on the R-House convention. We have taken on board all the elements of that in terms of access to environmental information, public participation and, in relation to access to justice, where changes have been made to standing for judicial review to create a clear, broader entitlement to take a case to court, including for environmental NGOs. In terms of the position of environmental court, we proceeded with a consultation, and I understand that an analysis of that consultation is to be published shortly. I am sure that the member will have further comment to make at that time. Gordon Lindhurst, to be followed by Mary Evans. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I also welcome the review announced by the minister, and, like her, I have an interest in the matters in my case as a practicing advocate. Those at the court face, such as many of my colleagues in the faculty of advocates and others in the legal profession who deal in legal aid cases, may be surprised and disappointed to hear the negative comparison that was made with the English system in view of the current state of legal aid in Scotland. Can the minister confirm that this review will not be a downwards only review, but further negatively affecting the ability of the most vulnerable in Scottish society to obtain legal representation? Annabelle Ewing. I feel that it was helpful in the statement to put to the Scottish legal aid system in some context that a system that is recognised internationally has been one of the most generous in the world by the international legal aid group. I think that the comparisons with what the member's party is doing down south in respect of legal aid are significant cuts to the budgets and significant cuts to the scope of legal aid that is available to people in 99 per cent reduction since 2012 in legal aid available for welfare benefit cases. I think that that is really quite a shocking statistic. The review panel is independent and it will proceed to investigate, to take in people's views and submissions and to reflect and to have discussions and to formulate the recommendations. I have total confidence that they will do that without fear of favour and bringing their tremendous breadth of expertise to the table. Mary Evans, to be followed by Mary Fee. The current legislation, as the minister has mentioned, is largely a piecemeal with the last substantive act being formed in 1986. The world is now a very different place with rapidly changing technology, so does the minister anticipate that any legislation created as a result of this review will be able to reflect the changes in technology as we move forward? Annabelle Ewing. I thank the member for a question and I think that it is an important one. As I mentioned, the remit of the review is also to look at, in 21st century Scotland, changes in the technological landscape. I think that that is very important, because I do not think that we have seen anything yet in terms of changes in technology. That fits in with our justice digital strategy approach. It fits in also with SAB's increasing use of online platforms and the ability to submit applications online and to treat online. I think that there is much more that can be done in terms of facilitating easier access for users of the system and simplifying the process and maximising efficiency. I think that, on the technological front, it will be very interesting indeed to see what the review panel will come up with, further to their engagement with wider stakeholders in Scotland. Mary Fee, to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Presiding Officer, I am grateful to the minister for early sight of her statement. The minister makes reference to proposals to streamline and modernise the system and goes on to say that proposals on certain fee reforms as regards criminal legal assistance have been developed and will be taken to the profession in the near future. Will those fee reforms include civil legal assistance and, if not, what is the timetable for looking at fee issues surrounding civil legal assistance? Annabelle Ewing. The three reforms to which I was referring in my earlier answer are work that follows from strands of work that were commissioned from SLAB in terms of my predecessor Paul Wheelhouse. One of those strands is to look at the possibility of streamlining funding in criminal cases, in some criminal cases, and that work has continued to pace. I understand from officials that we are nearing the point where we can go and have detailed discussions with the Law Society on that, and, obviously, we will be keeping the Justice Committee informed of that. In terms of the position of the civil legal aid and wider legal aid system itself, again, the review panel has been set up, they are independent and it will be up to the panel as to how they wish to proceed and how they wish to map out their focus and, of course, informed by the submissions that they receive from members and from the public alike. Ben Macpherson, to be followed by Lee MacArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. With regard to assisting those who are most vulnerable, can the minister assure Parliament that the extra support provided to the Scottish Women's Rights Centre to provide legal information and advice to women affected by gender-based violence will continue during the duration of the review? Yes, Annabelle Ewing. I am happy to do that. I would say that, to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Ireland's last year, some £665,000 extra money to the Scottish Women's Rights Centre to enable them to continue their excellent work in terms of their surgery work and their signposting on to women in that position. I know that they are hoping to extend from their base in Glasgow in Lanarkshire to extend north to Dundee and, I think, the Highlands as well, so that is very welcome and indeed I can confirm to Mr Macpherson that that funding will continue per the Cabinet Secretary's announcement. Liam McArthur, followed by Oliver Mundell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank the minister for early sight of her statement and notwithstanding the customary critique of what is happening elsewhere in the UK. I think that she gave a fair assessment of why the review is needed. I very much welcome the establishment of the group and its membership, not least my former colleague Alison McInnes. Can she advise the chamber on the likely timeframe for the group completing its work? Will she ensure that it takes account of any specific issues in relation to rural and island areas, in relation to legal aid and access to justice more generally? I can say to the member that the review will take up to 12 months. I think that the point that the member has just made about rural and island communities and their particular position is a point that is very well made. I know, at least I assume, that the review panel and the chair will have a look at the official report of this statement and ensure the question-and-answer session, and that that point will indeed be picked up. Oliver Mundell, followed by Rona Mackay. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. At a time when SPICE has confirmed that the Scottish Government's budget is increasing, many people will wonder why we are seeing a real-terms cut in legal aid. Rather than talking about what is happening in England and Wales, does the minister have an explanation? Annabelle Ewing Well, I think that what is clear is that, as between 2010-11 and I think 2019-20, Scotland's budget will decrease by some 9.2 per cent, which accounts to some £2.8 billion, and imagine what we could do with that. So, instead of whinging on to the Scottish Government about cuts from Westminster that his party is making in London, perhaps he might wish to direct his comments to his colleagues in London. Rona Mackay, followed by Rhoda Grant, if we are quick. In all reviews such as this, hearing from stakeholders and those with first-hand experience is vital. What steps will be taken to ensure wide engagement from stakeholders with the review? As I did in my statement, the widest engagement possible. I am conscious that we have set up this independent review and I feel, therefore, I do not want to unduly step on the toes having just done that very thing. However, I am sure that the way that the review will be taken forward is to seek evidence from wherever it can be submitted, because that will best inform the review and how it will determine its recommendations. Rhoda Grant, and we might even manage to get Stuart McMillan in. Thank you. Further to Claire Baker's question, this year's budget was a standstill budget. Therefore, will the review panel be able to make recommendations to increase the scope and payments made under legal aid? Can it look at how time and distance are taken into account in legal aid payments? As I said earlier, this is an independent review. It will take the review where it wants to go. As I also said, we do live in 21st century Scotland in times of great budgetary restraint and further two budget cuts from Westminster. So I guess that if you are sitting on a panel, that is something that is part and parcel of how you approach the issue. However, in terms of the nuts and bolts issue that Rhoda Grant mentioned, in terms of time and distance and so on, I would encourage Rhoda Grant or her party to make submissions in respect of detail that she hopes that the review panel will address. Finally, a quick question and answer, please. Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, if the review recommends a change to legalisation, I'm sorry, to legislation, will the Scottish Government accept their recommendations? As with any review that has been commissioned by the Scottish Government present or past, we will await the recommendations of the review group with interest and we will carefully consider them, and having duly considered them at the appropriate time, we will of course then bring matters back to Parliament. That concludes questions, and we now move on to the next item of business. I'll give a minute or so for people to change their seats.