Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will not go into the detail of specific court cases but, obviously, decisions that are made in courts could prompt Governments to consider their processes.

Obviously, the creation of a new court would be outwith my portfolio, so I do not want to speak for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs or for people who are involved in the justice portfolio.

However, from my perspective, there are routes to justice that do not require a specific environmental court: we have a court system already. The biggest barrier to people taking environmental cases to court is not the lack of a specific court associated with environment, but the expense of doing so. It is surely better to look at the existing court system and at access to processes such as legal aid or at capping of the fees that are associated with environmental cases than to go through the expensive and time-consuming process of setting up an entirely new court.

Absolutely.

It would make sense for the role to be fulfilled by Environmental Standards Scotland.

I do not accept that, because the review covered all the matters that are required by the 2021 act. It set out a clear overview of the policy on environmental governance. It recognised the strengths that exist and the balance of parliamentary, administrative and judicial roles in decision making on environmental matters.

We do not consider that our review was not expansive enough to comply with the environmental governance requirements that are set out in the 2021 act. It not only explicitly covered matters that are required under section 41, but went beyond those requirements and provided an overview on wider issues of environmental governance that stakeholders had raised with the Government. I do not accept those criticisms about the scope of the review.

The sense that I get is that certain stakeholders wanted us to consider the setting up of an environmental court as part of the review, which seems to be the driver behind those views, particularly from non-governmental organisations. However, the Government has decided that there is no need for an environmental court.

ESS’s strategic review is part of that: it is completely independent of the Government, and ESS will report to the committee and to Parliament. It will assess whether there are gaps, and whether it thinks that it can expand its remit within the bounds of the 2021 act. I am open to having those discussions.

Of course we will have those discussions, but it is really for ESS and for Parliament to look at the 2021 act, which sets out ESS’s parameters. There is quite a lot of scope under the 2021 act. ESS is a young organisation—it has been operational for only a few years. It is only right that it reviews what it has been doing and what more it could perhaps do. It would then be for the committee and Parliament to decide whether to accept its recommendations. Whatever ESS wants to do within the parameters of the 2021 act is entirely within its gift.

I imagine that she is absolutely doing that, not only through considering the environmental aspect of things but through leading on Aarhus compliance as well. We are not a state, as such, so we are not compelled to comply with the Aarhus convention. The United Kingdom Government is also looking at its compliance with the convention. Therefore, Ms Brown is working in concert with the UK Government on compliance with the Aarhus convention across the four nations of the UK.

Ms Brown has mentioned that she is looking at the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to how some aspects have been complied with. I have mentioned some of the measures that she has already put in place, and she is particularly aware that environmental cases have traditionally not been taken because of the high costs associated with going to the Supreme Court. She has put caps in place for the costs that are associated with such actions. However, I do not want to go into all the detail—I cannot go into all the detail because it is not my portfolio, and Ms Brown is leading on that. I refer the committee to the very comprehensive evidence that Ms Brown gave to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on the matter.

The Government has also been working very closely with the United Nations special rapporteur on those issues, in developing the work that is still on-going on the human rights bill. Even though it will not be presented in the Parliament in the next year—it is not in the programme for government—work is still going on to get it into the shape that we want, including the right to a healthy environment. Work is happening with the UN special rapporteur.

However, that right to a healthy environment would not in itself make us compliant with Aarhus. Lots of other things can happen. Some of the things that I have pointed to that Ms Brown is doing in her portfolio would get us to a position of being more compliant with Aarhus. However, that is the direction of travel. We want to be compliant.

None is expected at all.

I do not have them in front of me, but we can ask for them. They would probably be held centrally by the UK Government; we can certainly look into that.