Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does Stephen Kerr not agree that the rise of right-wing politics across the world should absolutely be front and centre in this debating chamber, if history tells us anything?

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the issue of Scotland’s compliance with the Aarhus convention, particularly in relation to access to justice on environmental matters. The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recently took evidence on that important issue, and I want to set out some of the key findings and themes that emerged during those discussions.

The Aarhus convention is an international treaty that was ratified by the United Kingdom in 2005. It establishes fundamental rights for the public in relation to environmental governance and guarantees access to environmental information, public participation in environmental decision making and access to justice on environmental matters.

Although environmental law is devolved, which means that the Scottish Government is responsible for compliance in Scotland, the Aarhus convention’s access to justice requirements have not been fully incorporated into domestic law. That means that individuals and organisations in Scotland cannot rely on them directly in our courts. Since 2011, the Aarhus convention compliance committee, which monitors adherence to the treaty, has found that the UK—and, specifically, Scotland—has not been compliant with its access to justice provisions. The main issue that has been raised in relation to Scotland is the fact that it remains prohibitively expensive for individuals, community groups and non-governmental organisations to bring legal challenges against environmental decisions. The evidence that the committee heard during its recent session reinforced that point.

The Aarhus convention compliance committee has repeatedly found Scotland to be non-compliant in relation to access to justice on environmental matters. I will be keen to hear the minister set out what specific steps the Scottish Government is taking to address those findings.

A striking example of the barriers that exist to environmental justice that was provided to the committee was that of the John Muir Trust’s judicial review challenge against the Stronelairg wind farm, in which the trust was ultimately unsuccessful. The financial consequences of pursuing the challenge were severe. The Scottish Government and the energy company SSE sought legal costs of £539,000 from the trust. Although that sum was later negotiated down to £125,000, that is still a significant sum of money. Such sums pose a substantial barrier to justice. For most organisations, and certainly for members of the public, such costs are simply unaffordable. The reality is that the financial risks involved in environmental litigation deter many people from bringing cases at all. That raises serious concerns about access to justice and compliance with the requirements of the Aarhus convention.

Three key potential solutions that would address those concerns were suggested in evidence to the committee. The first would involve repealing the joint interest test in relation to legal aid for environmental cases. At present, that test makes it extremely difficult for individuals to obtain legal aid for environmental matters, and community groups and NGOs are not eligible at all.

The second potential reform would involve the introduction of qualified one-way costs shifting, which is already in place for personal injury cases in Scotland, in environmental cases. That would mean that individuals and organisations that took environmental cases would not be exposed to the risk of paying the other party’s legal costs if they lost.

The third proposal would involve the establishment of a specialist environmental court, as exists in many other countries, to provide a more accessible forum for environmental cases. Regulation 15 of the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 2002 has been cited as a barrier to obtaining legal aid for environmental cases. I would be keen to hear from the minister whether the Government is planning to review or amend that regulation to broaden the scope of legal aid and improve access to legal aid on environmental matters.

Another key point that was raised during the committee session was about the availability of legal representation. Even when individuals or organisations are willing to pursue environmental litigation, they often struggle to find a solicitor to take on their case. The specialist nature of environmental law, combined with the relatively small number of practitioners in Scotland who focus on that area, creates significant difficulties. In some circumstances, potential claimants are unable to secure legal representation at all. In effect, that renders access to justice impossible.

The barriers that are faced by community groups were also highlighted during our evidence session. Unlike developers, which have the time, the financial resources and the expertise to navigate complex planning and environmental processes, communities often find themselves at a disadvantage.

Many groups lack the technical knowledge required to engage effectively with environmental decision making at an early stage. Witnesses stressed that although meaningful public participation is a fundamental principle of the Aarhus convention, many people feel disenfranchised by the system. Community groups often face challenges in engaging with complex planning and environmental processes, so I hope that the minister can share with us how the Scottish Government can support such groups to participate effectively in environmental decision making.

A key theme that emerged from the committee’s discussions was the importance of public awareness of and education about environmental rights. Effective access to justice is not only about the ability to go to court; it requires access to information, legal advice, and expert support at an early stage. Witnesses emphasised the importance of ensuring that individuals and communities are equipped with the knowledge and resources needed to participate fully in environmental decision-making processes.

Organisations such as the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland have highlighted that Scotland remains one of the more expensive jurisdictions in Europe for environmental litigation. They have drawn attention to the financial barriers that exist and have contributed to discussions about potential reforms that could improve access to justice in this area. Their work, along with contributions from other stakeholders, has been valuable in shaping the wider debate and I thank them for that.

I would welcome an indication from the minister of how the Government can collaborate with organisations and stakeholders to promote awareness of environmental rights and ensure that people in Scotland are equipped to engage in environmental decision-making processes.

Looking ahead, there are clear opportunities for Scotland to strengthen its approach to environmental justice. The potential reforms outlined during evidence to the committee, which included changes to the legal aid rules, cost-protection mechanisms and the establishment of a dedicated environmental court, all merit further consideration. Ensuring that environmental justice is accessible to all is not only a legal obligation under the Aarhus convention but a fundamental principle of a fair and democratic society.

The committee will continue scrutinising the issue and engaging with stakeholders to explore how best to address the continuing barriers to justice. The committee will imminently hold sessions on legal aid reform and this issue will form part of that consideration. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and, in particular, the minister’s reflections on the issues that the committee highlighted.

Investing in our people and communities through social security will be vital if we are to achieve the First Minister’s central mission of eradicating child poverty in Scotland. This week, the London School of Economics and Political Science found that the UK Government could cut child poverty by a sixth if it chose to match Scottish Government policies. Will the cabinet secretary lay out how much Social Security Scotland payments could be worth to a low-income family as they raise a child and how life-changing that investment could be?

Cathy Asante might want to come in on this.

Our second agenda item is to take evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission on its report “‘Tick Tock…’ A human rights assessment of progress from institutionalisation to independent living in Scotland”, which examines Scotland’s progress on moving from institutional models of care towards independent living and how the current practices and policies uphold the rights of disabled people. Members might also wish to explore further questions on another recent SHRC report, “Economic, social and cultural rights in the Highlands and Islands” as part of their on-going interest in rurality issues. I refer members to papers 1 and 2.

From the SHRC, I welcome Jan Savage, executive director; Oonagh Brown, participation and policy officer; and, joining us online, Cathy Asante, legal officer, human rights-based approach. You are all very welcome. I invite Jan to make a short opening statement.

We will move on to questions from Pam Gosal.

We have another question from Tess White.

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2025 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, in session 6.

Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Christina McKelvie MSP, who sadly passed away last week. As a previous convener of this committee and as an equalities minister, she was a fierce advocate for social justice and for human rights. She will be very sadly missed, but her legacy will go on, and we will always remember her, particularly through her work.

We have received no apologies today. Marie McNair will join us online.

Our first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take items 3 to 6 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Given that the coming home implementation plan has now ended, what mechanisms exist to hold decision makers accountable for the lack of progress?

Cathy would like to come in.