Seòmar agus comataidhean

That dates back to 2001. It is a long process, and there is not a deadline. In relation to the report that we got back in 2021, we have shown progress in all the areas that are being considered. The report has now gone to DEFRA; it is to be submitted at the end of November. We will wait for the feedback from DEFRA to see what further recommendations to take forward. We are keen to do what we can to be compliant.

The Government is independent of the SCJC, so consultation is up to the SCJC. I know that it has committed to consult on that issue next year.

I do not know whether any of the officials would like to add anything further.

I thank Pam Gosal for that question—I was watching the previous session before I came to the committee.

As I said in my previous answer, I have been clear thus far that we will not be introducing a bill in the current session of Parliament. I am really keen to look at legal aid reform, but it would be more in the landscape of secondary legislation. We have been listening to the committee, and it is important that we look in particular at different funding models for access to justice on environmental issues.

My officials are currently developing a paper on legal aid reform that will, in the coming months, set out the potential areas of reform. We are planning to host a variety of engagement sessions along with that.

Denise Swanson might want to add to that.

On legal aid reform?

The issue of whether there should be a dedicated environmental court in Scotland has been discussed for many years, and it is clearly a question of interest within many portfolios and the Scottish judiciary.

The most recently published statement on the issue was in the “Report into the Effectiveness of Governance Arrangements, as required by section 41 of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021”, which the Scottish Government published last year. That report had to consider whether an environmental court would enhance the environmental governance arrangements that were put in place by the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 to rectify the inadequacies that were created by the UK leaving the European Union. The report also considered wider issues of environmental governance in the context of the 2021 act.

The report stated:

“The Scottish Government recognises the strengths in the current balance of parliamentary, administrative and judicial roles in decision making on environmental matters, and does not see any strong argument for the creation of a specialist court.”

We have since consulted on that report, and a written statement will be laid before Parliament soon. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt that statement, but I will highlight some points.

The court in New South Wales was highlighted in the previous session. There are two key examples of such courts operating, in New Zealand and Australia, which have been discussed by stakeholders. As has been described, those courts have remits that mainly cover disputes about local spatial plans, environmental permits and planning applications. Most of the cases are not of a nature that would lead to a judicial review in Scotland; rather, there would be a reconsideration of the merit of plans and the decisions themselves.

In general, Parliament has shown little interest in such matters being considered by courts in Scotland in the same way that such issues are considered by those courts in Australia and New Zealand.

I cannot pre-empt what will be in the statement, but it will be given to all MSPs when it is available.

That is not under my portfolio, but we can write to the committee about that.

I will bring Walter Drummond-Murray into the discussion. As you said, it is quite a complex subject. I have responsibility for the access to justice part of it. There are also the environmental and planning aspects. We need to have a holistic, joined-up approach.

Historically, Walter has been dealing with the issue.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, committee. The instruments before you are the Upper Tribunal for Scotland (Transfer of Functions of the Transport Tribunal) Regulations 2024 and the Upper Tribunal for Scotland Bus Registration Appeals (Composition) Regulations 2024.These regulations are part of a package of four instruments that are closely connected and were all laid on the same date. The two affirmative instruments are important as they will continue the work to bring current tribunal functions into the Scottish tribunals structure and are essential as part of a wider package to enforce bus services improvement partnerships.

The first instrument, if passed, will transfer the devolved functions of the transport tribunal to the Upper Tribunal for Scotland. Those functions are the appeal functions that are currently exercised by the transport tribunal for certain financial penalties imposed by the traffic commissioner for Scotland on bus operators for failures to comply with certain statutory requirements set out in section 39 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001.

The regulations will also make transitional provisions to ensure that any live appeals before the transport tribunal transfer to the Upper Tribunal for Scotland. Equivalent bus enforcement powers conferred on traffic commissioners in England and Wales have an appeal route directly to the United Kingdom Upper Tribunal. Hearing appeals against service standard decisions in the Upper Tribunal for Scotland will ensure equal access to justice for any cross-border operators.

The second instrument, if passed, will make provision for the composition of the Upper Tribunal when deciding appeals against certain penalties that can be imposed against an operator of a local bus service under section 39 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and service standard decisions made by the traffic commissioner for Scotland in connection with bus services improvement partnerships.

Members of the Upper Tribunal can be legal, judicial or ordinary members. When deciding the appeals outlined above, these regulations provide that the Upper Tribunal may consist of: a legal or judicial member of the Upper Tribunal acting alone, or two or three legal or judicial members of the Upper Tribunal, or the president of the Scottish tribunals, acting alone or with no more than two legal or judicial members.

The power to choose between the compositions that I have just described is delegated to the president of the Scottish tribunals. The president of the Scottish tribunals, Lady Wise, was consulted on both draft sets of regulations in line with the requirements of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014. Lady Wise indicated that she was content with the two instruments. There was also a public consultation that included the regulations, which closed on 27 October 2023.

I understand that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered both sets of regulations on 1 October 2024 and was content.

I want to highlight that these regulations will have no impact on individual members of the public as they relate only to the appeals rights of local bus operators and local transport authorities. I am happy to answer any questions, convener.

I can answer that. Although the fee increases are more than in previous years, they should be seen in the context of the soaring inflation that we have experienced over the past few years, and the increased associated costs, which Walter mentioned. In 2021, there was no fee increase due to the pandemic; in 2022 and 2023, the increase was 3 per cent; and in 2024, it was 2 per cent.

There are no plans for further increases until 1 April 2026. The total increases are considered over a five-year period, which would be in line with the post-pandemic inflation as measured by the consumer prices index. One other thing to highlight is that the fees that have been selected for the higher percentage increase were chosen because they are lower in nominal terms, thus minimising any impact to access to justice. Specific examples, which I mentioned in my letter to the committee last week, are fees for the sheriff court caveat, which are proposed to rise from £48 to £58, and the fee for lodging a motion, which is proposed to rise from £54 to £65.