Chamber and committees

On the wider piece of work that you mentioned regarding environmental governance and the continuity act, am I correct in thinking that the minister intends to make an oral statement to Parliament?

Good morning. I will elaborate on some of the questions that we have explored in terms of the potential for reform of legal aid. In response to a parliamentary question, the minister said:

“Discussions on legal aid reform will commence this year and will include environmental stakeholders.”—[Written Answers, 3 October 2024; S6W-30377.]

Given that we are now 18 months from the end of this session of Parliament and that it has been stated that a number of other significant pieces of legislation, not least the human rights bill, will not be complete by the end of the session, is there a view about whether it is likely that legal aid reform will take place during this session, or is it likely to extend beyond that? Jamie Whittle, do you have a view?

Would you be keen to at least see some work started on that? I am sure that people have already started to discuss some views and ideas about what could change, particularly with environmental stakeholders. I assume that there is a wealth of experience and work that is ready to be put forward.

Good morning. In the previous evidence session, there was discussion about the possibility of dedicated environmental courts. We heard about some international evidence from New South Wales in particular, and the operation of its environmental court. Can the minister expand on why the Scottish Government thinks that a dedicated environmental court is not necessary in Scotland?

I appreciate that, but it would be useful to the committee if the relevant minister could give an indication of what the plan is for that.

I have heard what the minister has said regarding the Government’s view of the international examples that have been listed, and I also heard what the minister said in her previous answer regarding the reform of legal aid. Does the minister think that there is further scope to continue to monitor and discuss those issues? In the previous evidence session, scepticism was expressed about what can be achieved on legal aid reform in this session of Parliament. Could the minister touch on those wider on-going reviews?

Is it the Government’s view that the issues that we have just discussed will be touched on in that statement, with an opportunity for MSPs to ask questions?

No, except to say that that would be helpful to the committee, if it were possible.

Good morning. In your opening remarks, cabinet secretary, you mentioned the alkaline hydrolysis procedure and the payment being available to cover it—I think that you talked about being ready for that eventuality. What further work has been done on when the alkaline hydrolysis procedure might be available to those who receive the payment and what cross-Government work has there been on the matter? I appreciate that it touches on a number of portfolios. I wonder whether you could say something further on that.

Given the conversation that we have just had, and reflecting on the budget in five weeks’ time, are you satisfied that the process is improving, based on your interaction with stakeholders? The pre-budget fiscal update in September was criticised as adhering poorly to the principles of human rights budgeting. It would be useful for the committee to understand the minister’s role in supporting the process that Matt Elsby just described and in the on-going work on how we increase the detail that goes to stakeholders and the explanation about the potential impact of budgetary decisions.