AN independent review of Scotland’s legal aid system has recommended some fees should be “adjusted” – although added it was “impossible” to find evidence supporting an overall increase in the charges.
A total of 67 recommendations are made in the review, with the aim of making the system simpler, more user-focused and flexible, as well as sustainable and cost-effective.
The bill for criminal and civil legal aid assistance amounted to around £136 million in 2016-17, with spending in this area falling from £161m in 2010-11.
Scotland currently has the third highest level of legal aid spending per person in Europe, although expenditure in this area is less than 0.5 per cent of the country’s overall public spending.
Carnegie UK Trust chief executive Martyn Evans, who chaired the review, said it set out a 10-year vision for the system.
On the fees issues, Evans said he had not been able to find “persuasive evidence” there should be a general increase in all legal aid fees – saying this would “benefit some already very well-rewarded practitioners”.
However he argued the way fees are set “could be improved greatly”, calling for an evidence-based approach to be agreed between the Scottish Government, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland.
Evans said: “Fees for legal aid are a highly-contentious issue and I heard many views on the topic. It proved impossible to find robust sources of persuasive evidence for a general increase in fees.
“However, I conclude there may well be something in the case that some fees, in some circumstances and in some areas should be adjusted.”
The review also highlighted low morale amongst legal aid lawyers, with Evans saying he was “struck” by the extent of both this and the lack of public recognition for the “valuable work undertaken by those who deliver legal aid-funded services”.
Focus groups carried out during the review revealed some people “thought that top quality lawyers were more likely to work privately than choose to do legal aid work”, with Evans highlighting “unfair and untrue” perceptions.
The review also said there should be increased investment in service improvement and innovation. and technology, with more lawyers likely to use systems of “virtual practice or e-lawyering” in the next decade.
Mr Evans said: “The current legal aid system in Scotland benchmarks very well against other countries. However, we need to make the system simpler, more flexible and fairer for those who use it and those hard-working lawyers and advice workers who deliver it.”
Graham Matthews, president of the Law Society of Scotland described the review as being “no-nonsense, common sense”, saying: “We strongly endorse his call to maintain the scope of legal aid, simplify the system and reinvest any savings to ensure access to justice for members of the public.
“His recommendation of an independent evidence-based pay review with a commitment to regular reviews, offers a solution to the current issue of providing fair and sustainable fees for hard-working solicitors providing legal aid work.”
Legal Affairs Minister Annabelle Ewing added: “Scotland’s legal aid system is world-leading but improvements are needed to ensure its sustainability and I will meet with the Scottish Legal Aid Board, Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates as a priority to discuss next steps.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here