Chamber and committees

The member mentioned progress on the circular economy. When does she think that the SNP’s target to recycle 50 per cent of household waste by 2013 will be met?

Heat pumps are not mentioned in the statement, perhaps because the number of installations is well off target. The households that are buying heat pumps are generally older, more affluent and off the gas grid. If heat pumps are taken up more widely in urban areas, it risks the gas grid becoming a stranded asset and increasing costs for those who are unable to afford electrification. Why are heat pump installations failing, and what is the Scottish Government’s position on utilising biomethane in the gas grid?

What is Labour’s position on a dedicated environmental court facilitating access to justice?

I am pleased that this debate is taking place, because environmental justice has an impact on ordinary people and communities across the country.

We have heard about some of those issues today, and I welcome the minister’s commitment to introduce regulations to meet the requirements of the Aarhus convention. However, Douglas Lumsden described it as

“a disgrace and a shambles”

that such little progress has been made to date. Tess White made a strong argument for communities’ voices to be heard and described some of what she has seen as “environmental vandalism”. Sarah Boyack expressed her concern about the fact that a deadline to implement recommendations by 1 October 2024 had not been met. Mark Ruskell highlighted the issue of financial cost restricting access to justice.

Of course, there is a wider policy consideration—that of the codification and application of environmental law in a devolved context. We know that the Scottish Government has a policy position of aligning with EU law, even though there is no obligation on it to do so, but its policy with regard to international law—to which, from a legal perspective, there is a stronger case for adherence—is not clear.

I believe that there must be a level playing field when it comes to accessing environmental justice. We know that that is not the case at the moment. Pursuing action through the courts can cost eye-watering sums of money. That situation has put Scotland in breach of the Aarhus convention for a number of years. One community group in Maryhill in Glasgow had to resort to a loophole to secure legal aid. Even larger organisations find it tough. In one case, the John Muir Trust faced legal bills of almost £700,000.

The key point in all of this is not about giving one side an advantage over the other on any given issue. It is not about making it easier to challenge projects or, indeed, to steamroll decisions through. However, a review of legal aid in such cases should be looked at. I urge the Scottish Government to consider the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland’s proposal that the exemption from court fees for Aarhus cases be extended to sheriff courts. That is a relatively minor change, but it would show that ministers are serious about making progress.

It is important to build trust, because—I am sad to say—the Scottish Government has a relatively poor record of living up to its environmental and international obligations. On the Aarhus convention, there is not really any sign that the Government has a clear strategy to make changes, especially given that its proposed human rights bill appears to be missing in action. The Government also missed more than half of the Aichi biodiversity targets. Meanwhile, it failed to meet the domestic emissions targets in nine years out of 13, and its response has been to abolish the targets.

I have spoken about this before, but those repeated failures, coupled, it would seem, with a lack of repercussions, damage public trust in climate change and climate action. Without that trust, it becomes extremely difficult to deliver the changes that we need to make in our economy to deliver sustainable growth.

That brings me to the subject of having an environmental court. At a high level, it would be a means of holding the Government to account over the kind of failures that I have just outlined, in turn helping to strengthen public trust in our climate policies. I also note that the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland has outlined the potential for a number of practical benefits, such as reducing the current fragmentation whereby environmental litigation is carried out in multiple settings, or helping to reduce costs by reducing the risk of multiple legal proceedings stemming from one dispute.

Perhaps most importantly, a dedicated court would offer the possibility of easier and faster resolutions by, for example, employing mediation, which would reduce time and costs for all parties while building up greater technical expertise within the legal profession. The benefits seem obvious, so the question is: why is the Scottish Government not taking that seriously?

Since the disastrous collapse of the Scottish Government’s last attempt at DRS, a UK-wide scheme is being planned and a Scottish Government circular economy strategy is being prepared, in addition to the extension of producer responsibility. Can the minister confirm that work is being carried out to assess the impact of those changes on local authorities with regard to jobs, finances and recycling services?

To ask the Scottish Government how it is maximising the impact of its international development fund in its partner countries, including any of those affected by high levels of indebtedness. (S6O-04442)

I am interested in how the Scottish Government plans to engage with international organisations such as the United Nations to advocate the creation of a fairer global debt framework. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that international aid organisations that are based in Scotland, such as Mercy Corps, could be hit hard as a result of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to slash the international aid budget?

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it will reportedly not meet the target to reduce Scotland’s food waste by 33 per cent by 2025. (S6O-04426)

Missing the target to reduce food waste is bad enough, but it gets worse: the amount of food waste has increased by 5 per cent from the baseline. Given that, does the minister agree that it would be sensible to include a feedstock mapping exercise for organic waste in the waste reprocessing infrastructure report that the Scottish Government agreed to at stage 3 of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill?

The loss of so many jobs is a horrendous blow to higher education in Scotland and to Tayside in particular. In order to help to prevent an exodus of skills and to support the local economy, will the minister consider working with colleagues to create an innovation hub that is focused on emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence?