Civil Aid Inquiry: A much needed conversation

Pat Thom is the Vice President of the Law Society of Scotland and Co-Convener of  the Society's Legal Aid Committee.

On Tuesday 13 May, I gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s Inquiry on Civil Legal Aid.

This is a much needed conversation at a very important time. Presently, there are a number of discussions around legal aid taking place, such as a Government discussion paper or second parliamentary committee inquiry, and we are working hard to ensure we are part of all the avenues of discourse.

Prior to the session we engaged closely with a number of our volunteer member committees to help shape our positioning, and held an online roundtable to help inform our written submission. I was very pleased with the breadth and depth of the thorough written evidence we submitted in April 2025.

We were very pleased to be invited onto the first panel of the first of three oral evidence sessions – a panel I shared with the Scottish Association of Legal Centres (SALC). This first panel provided the collective view of civil legal aid providers, and tackled a range of questions covering all manner of issues:

• biggest barriers to access;
• how the Scottish Government has dealt with fee issues, and whether an increase, alone, is sufficient? 
• How well is the system of legal aid administered? 
• Our views on eligibility criteria, block fees, judicare provision, adults with incapacity, and
• Any longer term reform plans; including grant funding. 

My responses to these questions, along with views I tabled, aligned closely with SALC’s which was not unexpected, but also very useful to the cases we were making. If the necessary changes to the system we want are to happen, the issues - and solutions - need to be made clear and delivered by more than one voice.

Having the professional bodies of the system’s service providers speaking synergically about the barriers, risks, and opportunities displayed the necessary united front. We shared concerns over the retirement cliff edge, legal aid deserts, and exodus of professionals due to commercial unviability of civil legal aid.

Furthermore, it was made quite clear that all panellists, at both sessions, are in favour of a system overhaul or reform. This is reassuring, be it up to a point. We can all say that the system needs improved; but it is up to Committee to report and advise on what needs changed and why. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, this is the first of three oral evidence sessions. There are still other system users to provide further evidence to the Committee, as well as those who influence and make decisions impacting service delivery.

It is important that the issues with supply are given equal consideration to the issues with demand.

For me, the stand out question of the day was whether I agreed legislation is needed.

The answer is, of course, yes. It will be very difficult to bring forward all the necessary changes to the system without it.

Surveying the room, I got the impression that most, if not all, Committee MSPs are on board with the idea of creating legislation to contribute to mending the system.  

We had already submitted an authoritative written submission, but oral evidence sessions provide the opportunity to share experiences and explore the issues in more detail. Naturally, I had a lot to say in the hour session that I had, but the key messages I made were clear:

1. This is about access to justice, not pay;
2. This is about trusting the profession, and recognising that our members fulfil their obligation(s) professionally and ethically; and
3. Action is needed now.

Three simple, clear messages. There was agreement with these by both panels; and I hope there is accord in future sessions.

I also used the opportunity to inform the Committee why we withdrew from Scottish Government discussions around the fee research project which was useful – I am aware that sometimes our reasoning is misconstrued so I was pleased to set the record straight.

There are two more oral evidence sessions to go - on Tuesdays 20 and 27 May, with the Committee reporting shortly after.

Along with the Policy Team, I will be keeping a close watch on proceedings, and will report back to members any key issues arising from these sessions.

Whilst this Committee doesn’t make policy or legislation, it can influence them; and I believe there is room for cautious optimism looking ahead.