 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 5249, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to today's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you minister, no member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore the question is that motion 5249 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is topical questions in order to get in as many members as possible. I'd be grateful for shortening the synced questions and responses. At question number one, I call Gillian Mackay. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update following the summit on safe access to abortion services convened by the First Minister. Minister Marie Todd. The First Minister hosted a summit on safe access to abortion yesterday. The summit focused on making progress in ensuring women don't feel harassed or intimidated when they're accessing abortion services. In the discussion, it was agreed that primary legislation will be needed to provide a long-term solution for Scotland, but that any legislation needs to be considered carefully to ensure that it is consistent with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and can withstand any legal challenge. Both myself and the First Minister confirmed that the Scottish Government would wish to continue to work closely with the member on her legislation and, in particular, to take account of the forthcoming Supreme Court judgment in relation to the Northern Irish Abortion Services safe access zones bill. The summit also considered a number of short-term actions that could be taken while the legislation is progressing. In particular, local authority representatives indicated a willingness to look again at what can be done in those areas facing regular protests or vigils. We will have further discussions with them to consider further the potential for them to pilot the use of bylaws to provide safe access zones. Julie Mackay. I welcome the offer from both the First Minister and the Minister for Women's Health to work collaboratively on my bill. We now have MSPs from every party committing to back the issue. However, we know that legislation takes some time to come forward. In the meantime, what can Government, local authorities and the police do to ensure that we reduce the impact on those entering clinics? As the member says, legislation takes time. We discussed at yesterday's summit finding shorter-term solutions that will ensure that women can access the healthcare that they need in the meantime. Our programme for government included a commitment to support any local authority who wishes to establish bylaws to create protest, free and safe zones outside clinics that provide abortion services. The First Minister reiterated that at yesterday's summit and committed that she and the Scottish Government would meet local authorities and COSLA as soon as possible. I am very pleased that COSLA and Glasgow City Council, in particular, have indicated yesterday that they are willing to look further at this. The Government also continues to support Police Scotland to take appropriate action in response to any issues that arise at protests or at vigils. Abortion rights are under attack in many countries. Last week, we saw a devastating rollback of reproductive rights in the USA, and I am sure that this chamber would like to send its solidarity to those in the United States. We are also seeing legislation similar to mine in Northern Ireland, introduced by my green colleague Claire Bailey, challenged in the Supreme Court. It is more important than ever that we protect access to abortions and support those who need reproductive healthcare. How can the Government ensure that people affected by protests outside of clinics, including staff and patients, receive any emotional support that they might need, and will the minister join me in sending solidarity to all those in the US and elsewhere who do not have access to safe legal abortion care? I thank the member for that question, and I thank her for the opportunity to wholeheartedly offer my solidarity to women in the United States following the decision to overturn Roe versus Wade and to those women elsewhere in the world who do not have access to safe legal abortion care. At a time when women's reproductive rights are being eroded in other parts of the world, I want to reiterate my firm commitment to ensuring that the rights of women in Scotland remain intact. The Scottish Government will continue to work with healthcare providers to ensure that the appropriate support mechanisms are in place for patients. I and many others with an interest in abortion rights have seen comments some close to home from people who are seeking to limit our right to access this healthcare. In light of the Supreme Court in America overturning the Roe versus Wade case, what can the Scottish Government do to support women and the LGBTQI community in Scotland who may be concerned about the ramifications of the ruling on their ability to access services safely in Scotland? I reiterate my solidarity with all women, including LGBTQI women in the United States following the overturning of Roe versus Wade last week. The Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to ensuring that the rights of women in Scotland remain intact. We will continue to work with healthcare providers through the buffer zones working group and its members to ensure that the appropriate support mechanisms are in place for anybody who is concerned about it. What has happened in the United States has sent a shock wave around the world. All of us, as women with concerns about women's rights, are feeling frightened about the ramifications of that decision. However, I absolutely can understand why many minority groups are feeling more threatened today than they felt this time last week. I was pleased to join the First Minister and other colleagues at yesterday's summit on abortion services. I reiterate that we support the comments made by our colleagues today. However, keeping with that collaborative theme, a women's democratic right to safe healthcare services is vitally important. When the Minister will issue a revised approval under section 13A of the Abortion Act 1967 to allow Miffa Pristone to continue to be taken at home, where that is considered clinically appropriate. I have already made it clear that the system of being able to take both medications at home, which was introduced in an emergency during the pandemic, will continue. Towards the end of this year, I would expect a review that we have asked to be done of the safety and efficacy of the processes that we have in place to report. Of course, as with any healthcare provision, we will take on board any lessons that that review gives us in terms of refining the system going forward. What I would also expect from that piece of work is that we may well be better informed, bearing in mind that the systems that were brought in in an emergency situation in the face of the pandemic are variations all around Scotland on how they are delivered. I would expect to understand better those variations and be able to iron them out to ensure that there are absolutely no barriers to women in accessing early medical abortion at home. As we all are aware, it is safer, and it is much welcomed by women and healthcare providers as being a real advance in our ability to deliver equitable abortion services. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The summit was constructive. I pay tribute to all who took part, and I welcome the First Minister's commitment to a follow-up summit. Unfortunately, during the summit, Mr Mason, MSP, continued his dangerous disinformation campaign. His comments are not just his views, it is disinformation. He is talking down healthcare workers, and he is claiming that women do not have informed consent. We have already heard from the chief medical officer that there is no evidence to back that up. What will the Scottish Government do to tackle disinformation to make sure that all MSPs have the facts in front of them? It is not about our views, it is about the facts. What will the SNP do to ensure that Mr Mason does not continue with this dangerous disinformation? I thank the member for that question. It is an opportunity for me to put on record again that I profoundly disagree with Mr Mason's views, and that I am absolutely confident that services that are provided in Scotland around informed consent relating to abortions are not only good and meet the legal standards, but, in my experience, those people working in sexual health go above and beyond and deliver an exemplary gold standard in what we would expect around informed consent. They get right alongside their patients and, without judgment, help the patient to understand what they need to know in order to make a good decision, and they do that day in, day out, and we are grateful for it. In terms of the party, I cannot speak for the party. I am simply an MSP in the party. What I can say is that our manifesto committed us to improving access to abortion and to retaining the current abortion legislation that we have. In terms of misinformation, I agree that it is vitally important that each of us in positions of power in this place take our responsibility very seriously to ensure that the information that we give is accurate, and I am more than happy to liaise with the CMO to ensure that every member has the opportunity to understand the issues that hand. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on reports that the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association says that the impasse on legal aid payments has meant that the entire criminal justice system is an imminent danger of collapse. To put it quite simply, that is not accurate. The justice system is working through and reducing the Covid backlogs with SCTS confirming that the trial backlog has reduced by nearly 1,500 trials since April. Cases concluded above pre-Covid levels both in the High Court and also in the Shared of Courts. The court recovery programme is progressing in line with the expected pace. Our recent offer to the profession in May represented an increase of over 20 per cent over four years. Unfortunately, that was rejected by the profession, but I can update the chamber today and say that we have drafted a new proposal that will be put to the Law Society of Scotland this week. On 25 April, criminal practitioners voted to refuse all new instructions in summary cases in specific domestic abuse cases. They stated that this was necessary due to the Scottish Government's decision not to adequately fund legal aid. For example, in 1999, a summary legal aid case attracted £550, but in the year 2022 it was £550 and £76. The headline figures on increases did not reflect the reality of those fees. Another example is representing under 21s and remand cases, but complex cases are no longer a separate fee. The Scottish Bar Association, the nation's biggest defence lawyer group, has said that there has been a failure so far. I would welcome that there is a proposal on the table to engage with the Bar Association. It has said that there is no choice but to decline cases because they are not financially viable and they warn of a total withdrawal from the scheme by the beginning of the year if there is not a negotiation. Does the minister accept that that means that, if we do not resolve that, there is a crisis in the service, and what will she do to address those concerns? To start off with and pick up a couple of points that the member has made, there was a substantial set of reforms going on over many years. That was prior to 2008, so I think that for clarity and purposes of discussion going forward it is probably best if we stick to fee rates from 2008 and going forward from there. One of the other points that the member raised was DASA cases. I have said to the chamber furiously that, prior to notification about action by the profession, DASA cases and the fee rates for those cases had not been raised with me. Had they been raised with me prior to that point, I would certainly have looked to address them. I would say to the member that the Scottish Government is and continues to be in active negotiations with the profession. Members will understand that I need to balance interests right across the justice landscape, and of course I am operating in a very challenging public finance environment. Nonetheless, our actions, our investment in legal aid to date shows a Government that is listening and is wanting to work with the profession to find that way forward. If the Bar Association has not addressed those cases with you, I am addressing them with you today. In the 10 years prior to the pandemic, there was a 25 per cent loss in the number of solicitors engaged in legal aid work. I am sure that the minister would take that point on. There is not just a crisis in fees, it is a crisis of not having a proper resource defence service, and that is the direct result of the dramatic reduction in public spending in legal aid over 20 years. In 2008, the benchmark that the ministers have to accept was £155 million, but in the year 2019-20 it had gone down to £130 million, so there has been a fall of £85 million when you take inflation into account. Importantly, the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association has the average rate for a newly qualified defence solicitor, which is £25,000, as against someone who works for the Crown Office at £48,000. You can see that what is happening here is that we are not attracting people into the profession. Given the loss of solicitors in the sector and the huge paid discrepancies, does the minister believe that, if Scotland is to stand up and say that we have a properly resource and good access to justice, we need to resolve this crisis and we need to do it now? I remind the chamber that Scotland is one of the leading jurisdictions in Europe on legal aid in terms of scope and eligibility. I know that the member is aware of that, but the figures that she uses do not—I am afraid that I cannot accept her characterisation of the figures that she uses because—I know that the member knows that the legal aid budget is a demand-led budget, so it reflects the work that has been done usually up to about two years before that. Obviously, it varies from year to year. Members will be aware that negotiations with the profession have now been going on for some time. I know that there are a number of sets of figures that are bandied about different percentage rates, so I just want to be very clear on what has been agreed so far. In 2019, the Scottish Government put forward a 3 per cent uplift, and that was on all legal aid fees right across the board. In 2021, the Scottish Government did another 5 per cent uplift on legal aid fees across the board, and that was followed by a further 5 per cent uplift in 2022 across the board. In addition to that investment, there was £9 million in Covid resilience funding, and that was particular to Scotland. That was £1 million in traineeship funding, again the same. Initially, it was raised with me that I managed to resolve. I set up an entirely new payment for holiday courts. In response to the profession's previous asks—this was the ask that they had raised with me—that was for a 50 per cent rise in legal aid fees, and that was in addition to the investment that the Government had already put in. Unfortunately, we were not able to accept that. We put forward a rise that I mentioned in my previous answer, the total of which amounts to a 20 per cent increase. I would say, as well, for context only, that this is much more than has been offered in England and Wales. Members will understand that this is a time-consuming process. We are in active negotiations, and I am committed to finding a way forward. I am going to take two brief supplementaries, and I call Audrey Nicholl. I ask the minister how investment in fee uplifts in Scotland compares to that of England and Wales, and for those seeking access to legal representation, how does Scotland's legal aid system compare to England and Wales in terms of scope and eligibility? As briefly as possible, minister. The Scottish Government has provided fee uplifts and grant funding, which has been provided. It is much more than what has been offered. It has not yet been accepted, but it has been offered in England and Wales. Combined with our latest offer to the profession, the total is 20.5 per cent. That is since 2019. The minister might be aware of comments made by her SNP colleague, Mr Dave Duggan MP, who took to Twitter last night to mock well-respected members of Scotland's legal profession as they raised valid concerns about Scotland's justice sector. He aimed his comments at a female lawyer who is actually quitting the profession due to the mental health impact that the workload is having on her. Just for the record, minister, do you condone or condemn his comments? I have to say to the member that I have not seen those comments. I will endeavour to have a look at them, and then I can come back to the member. As I said, we are in active negotiations. I am very committed to finding a way forward. As I have also reminded the chamber, Scotland is a leading jurisdiction in Europe on legal aid. We have put forward a substantial package of investment to the profession, and we have retained that scope and eligibility in Scotland. I have to remind the member that it is not the case in England. Over 70 per cent of Scotland's citizens are eligible for some form of legal aid, and in England, that figure is just 25 per cent following some quite dramatic cuts in England. I do not think that anyone in Scotland would want me to follow the example of the Conservatives on legal aid.