Chamber and committees

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.

First, I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for raising this important issue. At the outset, I want to make it clear that the Scottish Government takes very seriously the impact of antisocial behaviour, including antisocial driving, on communities across the whole of Scotland, including in South Queensferry in the Edinburgh Western constituency. We are fully committed to supporting our communities and working with local partners to tackle the issues effectively.

Turning at once to Alex Cole-Hamilton’s concerns about antisocial driving in South Queensferry, I am aware that he will be meeting the First Minister tomorrow to discuss the issue in more detail. Members will be aware that operational decisions such as the allocation of resources are a matter for the chief constable. However, I understand that there has been extensive policing activity in relation to the reports of the antisocial use of vehicles in South Queensferry that came out of Alex Cole-Hamilton’s town hall meeting.

I understand that partnership working between the council and Police Scotland is continuing and that future work is planned, including consideration of speed control measures and improvements to closed-circuit television. Police Scotland and local authorities have a considerable role in that work in tailoring responses that meet the specific needs of communities, as we know that each area is different.

Absolutely. I will come back to the calls for a task force later on in my speech.

As some members are aware and have acknowledged in their contributions, Police Scotland and local authorities lead on interventions to address antisocial behaviour. Local partnerships are always best placed to understand the issues and what needs to be done, and there have been some great examples of that happening across the country.

All partnerships share the goal of wanting to prevent all kinds of antisocial behaviour. We all want the victims of antisocial behaviour to have the confidence to report incidents to the police and local authorities, and to feel supported and be listened to and updated.