Seòmar agus comataidhean

I make it clear to the committee that the approach reflects what the legal profession has advised the Scottish Government, which is that fees should be better targeted to the preparation of cases to aid early resolution. Therefore, the approach will support better cash flow and capacity for defence agents as well.

If the case progressed, the fee was £550. That fee will now be payable at an earlier date. My understanding is that there was not a set fee previously so it depended on the type of case and what stage it reached but I will let Martin Brown give you a bit more detail on that if he can.

I say again, just to be clear, that the pilots and the improvements to the processes that the SCTS is carrying out are being undertaken by the SCTS itself. The Scottish Government is supportive of moves to make the system more efficient.

The regulations were shared with the Law Society of Scotland, from which we have received no comments. As I said, I believe that the change will benefit the accused, but it will not benefit them solely—we need to be clear on that. I said that it will bring benefits to victims; I also think that it will be beneficial for legal practitioners and will bring efficiencies across the whole system. There is a backlog that we need to resolve, and I anticipate that changes of this nature will lead to fewer cases going to court, which will obviously have a positive effect on the number of cases going through the system—we are all interested in seeing that.

I set out in my opening statement the type of cases that this would apply to, but perhaps Martin Brown could give a little bit more information to Mr Greene about that.

I do not accept the full characterisation of the situation that the member set out in her question. We have shared the regulations and, as she rightly says, we have not received a great amount of comment on them.

I again note that the pilots are not being run by the Scottish Government. It is not a Scottish Government initiative, and we are not controlling or directing it; if the committee is interested in receiving a report on how the pilots have been run and on the conclusions, the committee should take that up with the SCTS directly. I am sure that it would be happy to facilitate that.

I also note that, although the pilots are taking place in only three areas, the regulations are an attempt to support the direction in which the pilots are going and to ensure that, for appropriate cases, the barrier—relating to the fee structure—to an earlier-stage resolution is not there. The regulations will allow for the earlier payment of legal practitioners, which I hope will be welcomed.

The regulations that are in front of the committee will apply not only to the three pilot areas but right across Scotland.

We do not have any data of that type at the moment. However, I am quite confident that this approach will have a significant impact on resolving cases appropriately at an earlier stage, which, for all the reasons that we have discussed, will be beneficial across the system.

Good morning, convener and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about the draft Advice and Assistance (Summary Criminal Proceedings) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2022.

The draft regulations have been laid to support the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service evidence and procedure review, through which three sheriff courts will pilot an initiative to test the benefits of earlier engagement between the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and defence agents. The purpose of the pilot is to encourage appropriate early resolution of summary criminal cases. Facilitating such early resolution will benefit accused persons and reduce the volume of cases in our courts, aiding the overall efficiency of the justice system.

Remuneration of the legal professionals who are involved also has to play a part in achieving those benefits. Currently, more favourable fee arrangements are available when a pleading diet has taken place in a case, and that might act as a disincentive to earlier resolution. Two situations have been identified in which a case may resolve without proceeding as far as a pleading diet and so give rise to less favourable fee consequences.

One situation is in cases that involve the service of a complaint but that are susceptible to resolution should the Procurator Fiscal Service agree to drop the case and not call it. A second situation is in cases that involve disclosure and/or Crown or defence engagement prior to the date that a complaint is actually served, such as undertaking cases. Again, they might resolve in a way that allows the Procurator Fiscal Service to drop the case.

The provisions in the draft regulations will amend legal aid fee arrangements to allow an inclusive fee to be paid to defence agents at an earlier stage of proceedings, having regard to both of those scenarios. A pleading diet will no longer be required to trigger payments of the inclusive fee.

That gives the committee a brief overview of the draft regulations. I am happy to answer questions.

It is £550.

It is being run by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service as part of its continuing work to improve efficiencies in the system for the benefit of everyone. I will let Justin Haccius give a little bit more detail on how that is working.

The Government’s role is to support legislatively the work that the SCTS is doing. The regulations are an example of that. Through them, we are removing the barrier that might create a disincentive—as the member has characterised it—to appropriate early settlement.

Justin, do you have anything to add on the SCTS pilot and how it will measure the work?

Thank you, convener, and good morning. As the convener said, the committee has before it the draft Scottish Tribunals (Listed Tribunals) Regulations 2022. This is a relatively straightforward set of regulations that amends the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 to insert the Council Tax Reduction Review Panel in the list of tribunals that can be found in schedule 1.

The 2014 act created a new, simplified statutory framework for tribunals in Scotland by establishing the Scottish tribunals, bringing together existing tribunal jurisdictions and providing a structure for any new jurisdictions.

The valuation appeal committees, the Council Tax Reduction Review Panel and certain functions of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland are to be transferred into the Scottish tribunals on 1 January 2023. Schedule 1 to the 2014 act sets out the bodies that may transfer into the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland. Although the valuation appeal committees are listed in that provision, the Council Tax Reduction Review Panel is not. The regulations rectify that.

I understand that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the regulations on 7 June and that it raised no points relating to them, but I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

I thank Ms Stevenson for meeting me to discuss her amendments. I welcome the detail that she has given in highlighting the importance of post-legislative scrutiny in implementing the legislation.

The Scottish Government set out in the business and regulatory impact assessment its intention to undertake a full review of the measures that are introduced through the legislation within three to five years of implementation. However, I recognise that enshrining that in the legislation would strengthen that commitment and reassure the committee with regard to the contents and timeframe of any review.

I consider that amendments 56 and 57 strike an appropriate balance; they provide enough time for meaningful data to be reported, for the lived experience of people in Scotland to be taken into account and for the Scottish Government to be held to account. I welcome the committee’s call in its stage 1 report for such amendments and Ms Stevenson’s work in bringing them before Parliament, and I therefore support amendments 56 and 57.

Amendment 90, lodged by Mr Greene, requires a review solely of the licensing scheme and, in particular, of the potential for unintended consequences as a result of its implementation. I understand that the amendment has been lodged to ensure that there will be no upsurge in illegal activity following the licensing scheme’s implementation and that the licensing fee does not deter those who would enjoy fireworks responsibly. However, I do not consider that the requirement for a review of the licensing scheme is necessary, given that both Ms Stevenson’s amendments—and, indeed, Mr Greene’s amendment 129—would require a review of the implementation of the legislation as a whole. A review of the licensing scheme would be required to take place under any such review.

On amendment 129, as I have said, I welcome the committee’s call for a review of the implementation of the legislation. However, I consider amendments 56 and 57 to be more robust in that regard by providing for the information that any such review must include while leaving no room for interpretation regarding the reporting period.

I note that a key addition of amendment 129 is for a review to be required to take place every three years. All policies are, of course, continually monitored, but I do not believe that a review every three years thereafter is either proportionate or necessary. I therefore ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 90 and not to move amendment 129.

Although I consider that Ms McNeill was significantly off-topic in her contribution, I will take this opportunity to rebut one of her points, if that is okay with you, convener.