Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am aware that we are well over time, but it is important that we have on record, very briefly, your views on monitoring and data gathering and the importance of it for everything that we have spoken about.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its strategy to further the case for Scottish independence, in light of recent reported polling indicating a majority in support. (S6O-04550)

People in Scotland are recognising the democratic deficit that we face. Given that growing public awareness, will the Scottish Government provide an update on how it intends to build on that momentum and continue informing the public, through civic engagement and public education, about the opportunities of Scotland becoming an independent country?

Slavoj Žižek, the Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic, once said:

“The task today is to link struggles which appear separate and local, to show how they are part of the same global process.”

He said that in the context of rising global inequality and political unrest, arguing that, if we fail to see the connection between what is happening across the world and what is happening in our communities, we risk misunderstanding both. That quote is very powerful because, when we talk about the international situation, we often speak in far-off terms about wars in other lands, authoritarian regimes and political instability, but we must recognise that those crises do not only happen somewhere else; they reach us and echo throughout our society, and they are repeated and replicated right here at home, in our communities and on our doorsteps.

I am deeply concerned about what I am beginning to see trying to take root in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast. I have witnessed a growing wave of intentionally planted hostility online, but it is bleeding into conversations offline and working its way into my surgeries. That hostility is being directed at people who are already marginalised. I have noticed that the noise is getting louder, more confident and more organised—it is strategic and deliberate.

When people are hurting and when services are stripped away, fear rushes in and opportunists pour their poison. It starts with fear; it starts with rumour; and it starts with blame. In my constituency, the council proposes to close day centres for people with learning disabilities and is discussing shutting down sheltered housing. The individuals who are affected by that, and their families, are terrified about what may happen to them. People are left confused, anxious and afraid. Rumours have started as a result of unscrupulous people stating, “They are taking the housing,” with “they” being asylum seekers. The blame is not laid on those cutting the services; it lands on the most marginalised. One vulnerable group is pitted against another—it is a vile tactic. It starts with fear; it starts with rumour; and it starts with blame.

We have seen where that leads. In the 1930s, Jewish people were portrayed as greedy and getting more than their fair share. It was a manipulation of public perception. The lies were repeated for long enough until people believed them, and we know where that ended. It did not begin with violence; it began with division, mistrust and disinformation. We must be alert when seeing such posts and hearing such rumours. Who is pitting one vulnerable group against another, and for what purpose? It is a disgrace, it is disgusting and it must be called out for what it is.

I support the Scottish Government’s clear stance against the international rise of the far right. We are right to stand up for peace, democracy and international law; we are right to invest in humanitarian aid; and we are right to speak out for those without a voice in Gaza and Ukraine—wherever the rise of hate rears its head. History will judge us, not just on how we responded to global crises, but on whether we defended democracy in our own communities and whether we stood up for human rights here in Scotland. Very often, the politics of division tells us to look at the wrong 1 per cent and to believe that someone else’s survival is the reason for our suffering. It is a lie, it is cruel, and we must always reject it.

I end with a plea to my constituents. This is where it starts: not in government but in our communities. It starts in fear, in rumour and in blame. If you hear a rumour online, please come and talk to me. There is no such thing as a silly question, and you will not be judged. I can help you check the facts and get you sources. Let us be vigilant against those who seek to use the suffering of our most vulnerable for their own ends.

It starts with fear, it starts with rumour, and it starts with blame. However, it can end with courage, it can end with truth, and it can end with compassion.

The ruling provides clarity on the interpretation of two pieces of legislation, both of which were passed at Westminster. Can the cabinet secretary say any more about any relevant engagement with the UK Government going forward?

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.