Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the fact that ground-source heating has been spoken about. However, for densely populated urban constituencies such as mine, in which there is no ground-source heating or for which individual heat pump installation is challenging, there will need to be reform of the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. I have emphasised that to the minister and the Government before. Can the Government give an update on how it is working with the Scottish Law Commission to update the 2004 act and on how changes to that act will be required so that those targets can be met in the coming decades?

[Made a request to intervene.]

Does the member agree that, to realise those rights, we must hold both private interests and private landowners to account? Although there is a need for accountability and for access to justice in relation to public agencies, given the amount of private landownership in Scotland, it is also about holding private companies to account.

Like colleagues, I welcome the debate on the Aarhus convention and the right to a clean environment. I think back to the discussions that I was able to listen to and partake in when I was a part of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, particularly the evidence that we heard on 16 January 2024. I commend both committees on the work that they have done and the document that we are discussing today.

During that period, and in my capacity as a constituency MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith, I have had great engagement with the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland. I fully appreciate the demands that it and others have made for thinking collectively not only about how we comply with the international convention—particularly after Brexit, as has been referenced—but about the rights of communities that should be enhanced or refined and how those rights are realised. I welcome the Government’s statements about legal aid and how we make sure that people are able to access justice.

There has been discussion today about whether we need new legislation, and there is a consensus that there should be a new human rights bill in the years ahead. That will be a particularly important piece of legislation to get right, because it needs to be not just about how we protect human rights—although that issue requires UK-wide action, which could potentially be dovetailed with European-wide action to make it as effective as possible, and I would envisage the discussion about ecocide coming into that debate—but about how we discuss those rights, how our society protects them and how realisable they are. For me, that gets to the heart of what today’s discussion is about: it is about how communities and individual people are able to exercise their right to a clean environment.

Multiple examples have been given, but the one that always comes to mind for me is from Leith, in my constituency. The port of Leith was privatised in the 1990s by the then Conservative Government. It included four basins at The Shore, which colleagues will be familiar with, as it is the iconic vision of Leith. Those four basins were then sold by the Port Authority to another private company, which then split the ownership between itself and another private company. The basins connect to the rest of the Water of Leith, which is publicly owned. That means that there is a very complex arrangement of different stakeholders for dealing with any environmental issues that occur in the Water of Leith basins, from silting to sewage water overflows, detritus collection and the operation of businesses.

The reason why I list those is that the way that we have managed them in recent times is by collaboration and negotiation; by me or the council using our convening powers; and, to an extent, by the benevolence of local business stakeholders who, thankfully, want to be part of the upkeep.

Unfortunately, there have been times when the upkeep and other issues have not been satisfactory, which is why my constituents have reached out to me and the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland to try to improve the situation and to realise a clean environment. I cite that example because it is demonstrative of how, if we had a significant and environmentally concerning scenario in the Water of Leith, the available legal avenues would not be as accessible as they should be to my constituents. The situation will be the same in other constituencies.

An area that we could look at that might allow us to make improvements in the shorter term is in our use of the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018. Could we undertake more group proceedings that might help in this scenario?

Rightly, there has been much focus today on the importance of the local economy and Grangemouth’s significance to the national economy. If the recommendations are progressed, what will the positive benefits be for the regional economy of the Firth of Forth, which includes the port of Leith?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to connect. I would have voted yes.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on an important piece of legislation: the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill. As colleagues have done, I thank the clerks to the Criminal Justice Committee, who have done an excellent job, and all those who gave evidence. I also thank the Scottish Government ministers and officials for their attendance and engagement during stage 1. I fully understand the importance of the proposals, the work that went into preparing the bill and the positive impact that it will have.

This afternoon’s excellent and constructive debate shows that there is a consensus on the importance of what needs to be achieved by the bill and the positive benefits that it will have if it is enacted and the provisions are implemented. There are also some shared positions on how we can, collectively, improve the bill ahead of stage 2.

Given that a lot has already been said in the debate about different aspects of the bill, I will focus on some aspects of part 1. I remind Parliament of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am on the roll of Scottish solicitors.

Part 1 supports greater use of digital technology, which will modernise the justice system even further with positive benefit for all. The measures seek to modernise the sector through greater use of digital technology, including for evidence sharing and making processes more efficient. Part 1 will also allow the electronic signing and sending of documents in criminal cases and more virtual attendance at criminal courts, which other members have touched on.

As has been stated, provisions in that regard have been in force since they were introduced, in 2020, in the emergency coronavirus legislation, and they have been firmly embedded in Scotland’s justice system, making many justice processes more efficient and reducing costs. The intention behind the bill is to enable all partners across the criminal justice system to maximise their resources and deliver services in an effective, efficient and sustainable way. The legislative underpinning that is provided in the bill will, importantly, allow pilots to be undertaken and a sustainable model to be explored further.

In paragraph 112 of our report, the committee notes:

“At present, the framework in the Bill is enabling rather than prescriptive, and sets the parameters within which courts can take decisions on virtual attendance. However, we consider that the Bill must include clearer rules setting out how the courts should use their powers.”

It was interesting to hear views on that from the variety of people who gave evidence to the committee at stage 1. The concerns that were expressed to us were mostly about practicalities and implementation. It is important to recognise that the commencement power in section 28 will mean that, although there will be an expectation of greater use of the powers once the bill has been enacted, it will be at the court’s discretion to determine whether attendance may be virtual or must be in person.

I note the Scottish Government’s response that

“the Bill as drafted ... adequately allows individual courts to address the issue of location of remote attendance. By providing that this is to be considered on an individual basis, rather than having a prescribed list of suitable locations from which evidence may be given, the Bill allows the court to fully consider the facts and circumstances in each individual case and the individual locations proposed, recognising that there will be a range of suitable locations.”

I absolutely empathise with the Government’s position not to have a prescribed list, because that could be a substantial listing of different circumstances and locations in which people could give evidence. However, I wonder whether, ahead of stage 2, we can collaborate to take on board what others have raised about, for example, the consistency of the digital link, the need to avoid digital exclusion, the need to have an inclusive, safe and supportive environment for people who give evidence, and our expectations for how evidence will be given by different types of witness.

The proposal to increase virtual attendance in the right circumstances is absolutely the right thing to do. Virtual attendance can ensure that witnesses and others who are involved in giving evidence do not feel intimidated, feel supported and are able to give their best evidence, or that the time of police officers and expert witnesses is not unnecessarily wasted—which can sometimes be, and has been, the case.

Perhaps some work can be done collectively ahead of and through stage 2, and into stage 3, to get a more definitive position on carrying out in the right way the practical implementation of the bill, the aspirations of which we all want to achieve and which will make a meaningful difference.

I thank the Government in advance for that engagement.

The Scottish Government is aware of Nova Innovation, a world-leading Scottish marine energy company that manufactures in Leith, in my constituency. It has secured £100 million of investment for a tidal array in Orkney, is planning floating solar arrays across the UK and is considering a manufacturing base in Grangemouth. Considering all of that, will the minister agree to meet me and that remarkable home-grown company to discuss its projects and next steps?

I have had the opportunity to be a guest of the Black Watch at some mess dinners at Fort George. While it is an impressive historic estate, it is clear that the facilities and accommodation are far from suitable for the modern soldier. With that in mind, will the cabinet secretary consider how we can maintain the Army’s footprint in Scotland while upgrading facilities and moving away from antiquated estates such as Fort George?

The minister has previously advised that work is being undertaken to consider effective alternatives to secure care so that children and young people receive the care that they need in the setting that most appropriately suits their needs. With consideration of all that has been said so far, can the minister say any more about such alternatives?