Mark Ruskell
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“I move amendment S7M-00434.3, to insert at end: “; recognises that, despite a media backlash, a majority of the public continues to back strong climate action, especially young people; further recognises that local communities and workers must have a meaningful participatory role in developing and implementing local climate action, with t…”
“I move, That the Parliament recognises that climate change constitutes an emergency; supports the goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius; notes the consequences of climate change that are currently impacting populations and places around the world; condemns any spread of misinformation about and denial of the impacts of clima…”
“Mark Ruskell was right to point out that we need a just transition, as we do not want to replicate the mistakes of the 1980s. However, we need action on electricity prices.”
“We cannot cut ourselves off from the impacts of global climate change, as Reform would want us to do, just as we cannot opt out of global action by pretending that Scotland does not have huge advantages over other countries when it comes to reducing emissions.”
“A study that was commissioned by the Institute for Public Policy Research a couple of months ago showed that 62 per cent of the UK public back strong climate action, and individual policies such as traffic reduction measures, frequent flyer taxes and low- carbon home heating remain popular.”
“We need to accelerate that action, because as we do so, we will build market certainty and create new markets that will provide new jobs and boost businesses. I think that I have made quite a lot of mention of the amount of GVA that it is bringing to Scotland.”
The complete record
Every one of 440 lines we hold for Mark Ruskell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 9.
“It is obviously important to involve people sooner, build consensus earlier and maintain focus on the people who the reforms are meant to serve. As we get into the stage 3 debate, it is important to be honest. We wish that the bill had delivered more—more for those who rely on social care, for paid and unpaid carers and for the workforce. The need for improvement has not gone away; it remains urgent, and care reform must not be shelved. It is clear that this is a long-term goal that must now be achieved incrementally. The bill has moved a long way from where it started. It is not perfect and key issues remain up for debate. However, we have arrived at a place today that reflects a more consensual approach from the sector, carers and parliamentarians across the chamber.”
“Reform of this scale requires openness and collaboration, particularly when we are trying to fix issues that many people across the sector have been raising for years: unclear leadership, poor information sharing, fragmented funding streams, a postcode lottery for care and an overcomplicated landscape. Those cracks, which were already present, were deepened by the pandemic. We know how wide the gap can be between good policy ideas and real improvements on the ground that people feel. Health and care reform has always been tough, and this bill is no exception. Integration, although necessary, remains deeply complex. My hope is that the Government reflects carefully on the missteps in this process. It is not time to retreat from that ambition but to learn how to do better next time.”
“I am proud to have lodged amendments that build on her work, particularly around strengthening independent advocacy. I also thank the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport for her constructive engagement with Gillian and, latterly, with me. There is no hiding the fact that the bill has been enormously challenging, however. The intention and ambition behind the original bill deserve recognition. The National Care Service (Scotland) Bill aimed to build on years of efforts to better integrate health and social care. Going back to my time as a councillor, I remember how hard it was, in the early days, to bring that provision together on the ground.”
“First and foremost, I pay tribute to the carers and care workers who have consistently looked to the Parliament to legislate for a fairer and much more compassionate social care system. Many of them have joined us here throughout the afternoon. I know that Anne’s family are here, too. I also wish to thank the many third sector organisations—those that gave evidence throughout the different stages of the bill and everyone who has engaged with, shaped and challenged the bill. Their contribution has been invaluable. I acknowledge my colleague Gillian Mackay, who worked tirelessly throughout the process. Her engagement and her amendments at stage 2, which were developed in close partnership with carers and supporting organisations, have been instrumental.”
“The Presiding Officer: I call the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport to speak to amendment 3 and other amendments in the group.”
“Following discussions with the minister between stages 2 and 3, I have carefully considered the concerns raised, in particular those concerning the potential implications for data protection law, which is reserved. There is a risk that the amendment could prevent health and care providers from sharing personal data in situations in which it is currently legal and appropriate to do so, especially if they are acting in the best interests of a person, including children or vulnerable adults. I recognise the concern that requiring consent in such cases might be impractical and even counterproductive. However, I acknowledge Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2, which shares a similar aim of enhancing data safeguards. It makes progress in that sensitive area, and the Scottish Greens will support that amendment and Mr Whittle’s amendment 2A.”
“I recognise that I am stepping in on the bill at quite a late stage. I am here because Gillian Mackay is on maternity leave at the moment, but I am very much progressing the amendments that she pursued at stage 2. I am sure that Gillian Mackay would concur with Jackie Baillie’s comments that the dialogue with the minister about the amendments has been very constructive. Section 36 of the bill outlines information- sharing requirements for professionals who work in public health and social care services. In order to create a care record system that is person- centred, that section of the legislation could be amended to outline measures that ensure that citizens have control of and access to their data as part of a real digital choice approach. I do not want to disappoint Brian Whittle, but I will not move amendment 53 today.”
“To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to secure a direct ferry route between Scotland and France. (S6F- 04145)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on using the powers outlined in the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 to prosecute nationals and residents of the United Kingdom residing in Scotland who have committed war crimes. (S6O-04749)”
“Mairi Gougeon: As I outlined in my statement— and I hope that I have been clear on this today— the Government is, of course, open to establishing more national parks in Scotland, but we need to ensure that we get the process right. I will not set out today that we are not looking to revisit other bids or proposals. We reached the stage of introducing the proposal to designate Galloway as a national park only because it met all the criteria that had been established and consulted on. We are not looking to do that at the moment, but we remain open to doing so in the future.”
“The Galloway national park was a once- in-a-generation opportunity for local communities to deliver investment in tourism, the food economy, nature, transport and housing, while getting more local control over forestry and wind farm developments. All that has been lost because of a failure of the Government—and some local politicians, such as Mr Carson—to show leadership and to counter an aggressive misinformation campaign from landed interests. Communities in Perthshire, meanwhile, showed majority public support for a new Tay forest national park, despite facing a similar aggressive misinformation campaign. Will the Government now re-engage with that bid for Scotland’s third national park, or has it simply given up on the idea altogether?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to support transgender people following the recent Supreme Court ruling, in light of reported concerns from transgender people, and their friends, family and allies that it undermines the rights and risks the personal safety of transgender individuals. (S6O-04729)”
“Every community has its own different and complex set of housing issues to deal with, but all the tools in the box are needed to create a better balance of housing, particularly in rural Scotland. We should not be afraid to give communities, councils and national parks the powers that they genuinely need to achieve that. 13:14”
“Who will work to clean and service those lets if there is a lack of permanent housing for local people? There is a balance to be struck between being a place to live and simply a place to visit. Holiday lets help to make tourism happen but, alongside second homes, their proliferation can lead to a tipping point where communities become effectively hollowed out. Members have already pointed to many examples, with Ross Greer saying that many people feel as though they are living in a museum or a theme park and Emma Roddick pointing to the impact on her community. I point to Elie and Earlsferry, an area that has the highest percentage of short-term lets in Fife, with almost one in five houses being let out—a figure that does not even account for private second homes. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate.”
“In Highland Perthshire this week, in a move that I warmly welcome, the council finally agreed to create Scotland’s third short-term lets control area. That is one intervention to address just one part of the problem. There was a remarkable response to that council decision from the chief executive of the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, who said that a short-term let delivers “three times the economic output of a private home.” That comment speaks volumes about the many people who are struggling right now, including in my community, to find a home in rural Scotland. It also raises serious questions. What is more important, a place to live or wealth generation? Who feels the benefit of that wealth? Does it stay in the community or does it go to a remote owner or to a letting agency?”
“Adult children often have to stay in the family home while saving for a deposit or even to move out of their community, away from friends and family, at a stage in life when support networks are incredibly important. I also see older people struggling. They can become trapped in unsuitable housing because there are few properties available to downsize into and they sometimes end up in precarious tenancies in poorly serviced park homes. There are few options for people in many rural communities. It is in those hotspots that we can most clearly see the impact of second home ownership. Shops close because of a lack of regular custom, schools have dwindling numbers of young people, leading to their eventual closure, and residents no longer have neighbours.”
“In hotspots across my region, increasing numbers of family homes are being bought up by people from outwith those communities for use as second homes or to rent out as businesses. That is not the 1950s picture that Meghan Gallacher pointed to: we are seeing increasing and intensive ownership of second homes. Our communities welcome people who come to make their lives in permanent homes, helping to build a better future for all and committing to communities, but we are seeing more second homes artificially inflating the housing market and pricing out locals, particularly families who are taking their first steps in the housing market.”
“I join colleagues in thanking Ross Greer for bringing this debate to the chamber. During his time holding the finance brief, he has shown the fierce determination that Carol Mochan described and has worked to find ways to use tax as a tool to deliver a much fairer and more equal society. He also acutely understands the housing pressures that are faced in many areas of Scotland, particularly within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, which lies in both of our parliamentary regions and is also where I now live. The debate is about housing but it is also about poverty and inequality. There is a need to use all possible levers, including planning, licensing and taxation, to ensure the health of our communities.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will issue a formal public apology to members of the Gypsy Traveller community, in light of reports of the harm caused by what was known as the tinker experiment. (S6O-04656)”
“That could have kept up the pressure for improvement. I believe that communities, from wild swimmers to dog walkers, have a role to play in monitoring the state of our beaches and making a small but important contribution to cleaning up. I join other members in thanking volunteers and celebrating that work. I am already looking forward to joining my next beach clean in Fife. 18:42”
“Members talk about nurdles and microplastics, so there is a role for regulation here. There is a role for making the polluter pay and for driving industry towards innovation to find solutions. Voluntary action can take us only so far. For decades, raising the floor of regulation across Europe was how we delivered environmental progress. That is why maintaining alignment with European Union laws will be important for the health of our coasts, nature and bathing waters. It is also why Environmental Standards Scotland has such an important role in holding Governments and regulators to account post Brexit, so that we can continue that progress. I am a little disappointed that we will not see the promised water and sewage bill from the Scottish Government in this session. Maybe the minister will have more to say on that.”
“I remember that, when the DRS was being considered by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, the many years of MCS beach cleans were a central part of the evidence in favour of the DRS scheme, which was originally introduced by Roseanna Cunningham. It is disappointing that, in this session of Parliament, ostensible lobbying from the glass industry undermined the scheme that had been developed in Scotland. Ultimately, it was blocked by the UK Government. As we move past that period and look to a new UK-wide DRS, although it will arguably be weaker, it is important to acknowledge that, in many ways, the worsening condition of our beaches is happening because vested interests have had some considerable success in slowing environmental regulation.”
“We cannot ignore the fact that drinks bottles and cans remain a major part of the beach litter problem. Changing behaviour and attitudes is one part of the solution. A number of members have mentioned the success of the carrier bag charge, which came in more than a decade ago. As a result, there has been an 80 per cent reduction in bags turning up as marine litter. Clearly, incentives for citizens and consumers work, but it is also important that we do not forget that the polluter should pay and that producers of waste should ultimately take responsibility for it. In the previous session, the Parliament agreed to the deposit return scheme for drinks containers, putting the responsibility back on to producers to run their own take-back scheme that would work for the public.”
“We need to find those wins for nature and climate that create that sweet spot for community action. Seagrass is a really good example. Many more coastal projects have been funded through the nature restoration fund, which is creating a real focal point for community empowerment. It would be great to hear the minister reflect on the success of that fund and where it will go in the future. However, what we have learned through the surveys, particularly in the past couple of years, is that our beaches are sadly becoming dirtier, with a rising tide of marine litter. To return to seagrass, 92 per cent of our seagrass across the UK has been destroyed, in part because of litter. This year’s “State of our beaches” report shows an increase in the proportion of litter that is found on our beaches for the second year in a row.”
“Although our beaches and coasts are also on the front line of climate change, with threats from storms and sea level rises, our shores hold part of the solution as to how we can adapt to climate change, too. I was really delighted to visit Restoration Forth’s seagrass project recently. I see that Ben Macpherson is nodding, as he will recognise that project from this side of the Forth— in particular, the excellent work on oyster bed recovery. I was particularly struck by that work on seagrass, which is—or was—found in many sheltered areas and coasts. Not only is seagrass a wonderful nursery for marine life, but it captures 35 times more carbon than the rainforests do. It feels to me that restoring seagrass and working with communities is a great way to address some of the impacts of climate change and to empower people.”
“I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing the debate to the chamber. We have this debate pretty much every year, and it is really good to be able to reflect on the progress that has been made and to celebrate MCS’s on-going, excellent work. As we have heard in contributions from all members, Scotland undoubtedly has some of the most beautiful beaches in Europe. It would be remiss of me not to mention West Sands in St Andrews and Silver Sands in Aberdour, in my region. We have thousands of miles of beaches and coasts, which not only are home to nature but keep us active and healthy, and bring pleasure to millions of people. They also tell us the story of our communities and are wonderful places for learning and discovery for people of all ages.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what pathways are available to obtain a child ADHD assessment for those who do not have a co- existing mental health disorder that meets the child and adolescent mental health services mental health criteria and who cannot afford a private assessment. (S6O-04620)”
“To be honest, that filled me with range anxiety, given that I can charge my own EV at home, overnight, for 8p per kilowatt hour. Why would we move towards a hydrogen transport system that would create so much range anxiety? A strong hydrogen economy in Scotland is in the offing, but it must be focused on the hard-to-abate sectors. That is where we should put in the research and the just transition planning. It is also where we should put in the science and the effort from Government and industry working together, rather than wasting time on applying hydrogen to areas that will be not cost effective and will end up driving up bills for hard-pressed families around the country. 16:36”
“It is not just the Greens who are saying that. Several years ago, the UK Climate Change Committee advised the Scottish Government to develop a plan B in case the Acorn project does not match the expectations that Kevin Stewart set out earlier. It is not a dead cert that CCS will be available, will be cost effective and will work. Several members have mentioned potential applications for hydrogen in the transport sector. I can absolutely see its being used for heavy transport and shipping, but not for lighter forms of transport such as coaches, buses, cars or heavy goods vehicles. It was interesting to hear Graham Simpson and Maurice Golden getting so excited about potentially having hydrogen refilling points every 124 miles.”
“It wants to blend hydrogen in, but 80 per cent of what will be flowing through that gas grid in future will be fossil fuel gas, which will make us more and not less dependent on fossil fuel heating. Of course, we cannot put carbon capture and storage on millions of domestic boilers in people’s homes, so there is a danger that we would lock in emissions if we went down the route of blending hydrogen into the gas grid. Brian Whittle: Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention on that point? Mark Ruskell: I would like to make progress. A number of members have spoken about the role of blue hydrogen in the mix as part of the transition. I recognise Kevin Stewart’s enthusiasm for CCS, and a part of me really hopes that CCS works and is effective and efficient, but there are still major concerns about CCS and whether it is deployable at scale.”
“If Mr Simpson genuinely wants pensioners and hard-working families to pay astronomically high energy bills because of a hydrogen heating solution, I think that that is wrong and would drive people into fuel poverty. That is exactly why the UK Climate Change Committee has recommended against the widespread adoption of hydrogen for home heating. Graham Simpson: Will Mark Ruskell give way? Mark Ruskell: I need my time on this. On H100, Brian Whittle and Maurice Golden pointed to what the real driving interest is behind that particular home heating project: it is quite clear that SGN manages a gas grid and wants to continue to put fossil fuel into that gas grid.”
“The studies have all reported, and not a single one of them—across Europe or around the whole world—has recommended the widespread use of hydrogen heating. That is partly because each of those studies has shown an increase in energy costs as a result of hydrogen heating. On average, the studies show an 86 per cent increase in costs for householders. Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con) rose— Brian Whittle rose— Mark Ruskell: I want to make some progress. Graham Simpson talked about people out there wanting a wonderful heating system whereby the only thing that is produced at the end of the day is water. That is absolutely fine, but it cannot come at the expense of fuel poverty.”
“The cabinet secretary talked about the 100 pilot projects around Scotland in which the Government has invested, and a number of Scottish National Party members have spoken about the pilots in their constituencies. How many of those pilot projects are focused on the hard-to-abate sectors, and how many of them are experimenting with uses of hydrogen in easy-to-abate sectors for which we already know the answers? The cabinet secretary mentioned the H100 project in Leven as a domestic application of hydrogen for heating and there being a need to prove the concept for that. However, we have already proven the concept of hydrogen heating many times over. Globally, 54 independent studies have been done that have picked up on hydrogen heating projects.”
“Willie Rennie talked about the need for us to build up the domestic demand for hydrogen in Scotland. However, as Sarah Boyack pointed out, that can come only through an industrial strategy and just transition planning, for example, at the cement factory at Dunbar, at Grangemouth and at Mossmorran. We need to start with the role of hydrogen in our domestic industrial sector and then build up supply chains and understanding around that. The cabinet secretary moved on quite quickly to talk about the role of hydrogen in easy-to-abate sectors, which is where the Greens disagree with the Government. It makes no sense to invest in hydrogen in uncompetitive uses such as domestic heating, trains and buses in our cities, which are grossly inefficient uses of hydrogen.”
“I very much welcome this afternoon’s debate. I would characterise much of it as being about the laws of physics versus magic solutions. I certainly thank Daniel Johnson and Patrick Harvie for reminding us of some of the laws of physics and chemistry in relation to hydrogen and for setting out some of hydrogen’s advantages as an energy vector, as well as some of its limitations. We need to start the debate by understanding the facts on what hydrogen can and cannot do. The cabinet secretary said early in the debate that the Government’s focus is on the hard-to- abate sectors. As Greens, we very much see a role for green hydrogen, in particular, in the hard- to-abate sectors such as fertiliser production, heavy shipping, aviation, cement production and, potentially, steel.”
“When the plan comes back to COSLA at the end of this week, it will be gutted and all the meaningful action will be taken out of it. All the actions that local authorities such as the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council want to put in place to start to tackle congestion and deliver investment will be left out of the plan. We need to reflect on the fact that progress on road charging has been absolutely non-existent in Scotland. We are 22 years on from the introduction of the congestion charge in London, which is now just accepted as part of everyday life and which raises significant revenue for public transport investment. It is time to support local authorities that want to introduce road user charging, such as those in Edinburgh and”
“Does he accept that the new guidance is clear that only a 7 per cent reduction is needed, and that we are working to bring together the kinds of initiatives that will allow us to do what all members in the chamber want to achieve? Mark Ruskell: I ask the minister to reflect on what Duncan Cameron from FirstGroup told Parliament just yesterday. He said that dropping the 20 per cent target represents a huge missed opportunity. There was an opportunity for partnership action and to have a clear focus. Targets without measurable actions are doomed to fail. Despite the fact that a draft route map to reduce congestion was published jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities three years ago, the plan is yet to be agreed.”
“A traffic reduction target, backed by deliverable actions, is needed now more than ever. Dropping the 20 per cent target is a real backwards step that sends out the wrong message, removes the focus and undermines the partnership action that is needed on the ground to prioritise public transport and active travel. Jim Fairlie: Will the member take an intervention? Mark Ruskell: If there is time in hand, I would welcome that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is very limited time. Mark Ruskell: Okay—very briefly. Jim Fairlie: Does the member not accept that the target was dropped because it was absolutely unachievable?”
“I ask members to reflect on the fact that, since the Parliament was established, the number of cars on the roads has increased by 38 per cent and mileage has gone up by 16 per cent, while the cost of motoring has decreased by 19 per cent, rail fares have increased by 31 per cent and bus and coach fares have risen by an eye-watering 102 per cent in real terms. It is clear that successive Governments have prioritised car dependency, and that people who choose or rely on public transport are continually being disadvantaged by Government policy. Transport is the biggest climate polluter, and private cars pollute the most. Actions are needed to reduce private car usage and demand— otherwise, other parts of our economy will have to pick up more of the burden in getting to net zero.”
“It is clear that there is no war on the motorist, and it is a bit silly to suggest that there is. However, I absolutely think that, every single day, motorists face congestion misery on our roads, so we should be tackling congestion. We can do that only when the costs of public transport fall relative to those of the private car and when better reliability, punctuality and frequency make bus and rail the natural choice for commuters, where they have that choice available. Facts are really important in this debate.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what the timescale is to adapt the HMP Stirling estate to address the ongoing noise complaints, in light of reports from residents that the noise disturbance is getting worse. (S6O-04556)”
“The climate and nature crises are only worsening, so we need to deliver environmental justice, and we cannot wait another decade for the principles of the Aarhus convention to be fully enshrined in Scots law. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ruskell. This is a reminder that comments should always be made through the chair. We move to the open debate. 16:33”
“They should all have the right to challenge such developments, but the justice system needs to respond quickly and proportionately. The planning system is also hugely important. It deals with where renewable energy development should take place—and where battery storage should be, because we need more of that, Mr Lumsden—and the role of communities in that system is absolutely critical. That is the same for pylon lines, for renewable energy, for the dualling of the A96 and for all the other developments that many people feel are necessary and which, in some cases, the Government wishes to support. They need to be adequately planned before things get to the point of judicial review.”
“Douglas Lumsden: Will Mark Ruskell clarify the Green Party’s position on pylons, given that their installation is destroying large parts of our countryside? It seems unusual that the Green Party would be in favour of the destruction of our countryside. Community groups are struggling to defend themselves because of the large costs that are involved in doing that. Mark Ruskell: It is disappointing that Douglas Lumsden is trying to boil it all down to one particular decision and one particular issue. I respect the fact that there will be communities that want to challenge the pylon lines. It was the same with the Beauly to Denny case. There will also be communities that want to challenge other forms of development, such as fracking, Mr Lumsden, fossil-fuel power stations at Peterhead and wind farms.”
“It touched on the merits, but we need full merit-based challenges. There are other actions that the Scottish Government can take. As we have heard, it can reform legal aid to make it more accessible for environmental cases, remove the loser pays rule and extend the exemption from court fees for Aarhus cases to the sheriff courts, as well as establishing an environmental court and increasing access to justice and judicial expertise on environmental cases. Failure to comply with the Aarhus convention is a political choice that the Scottish Government has made over and over again. Douglas Lumsden: [Made a request to intervene.] Mark Ruskell: If I have time, I will take Mr Lumsden’s intervention. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back.”
“However, even if all the costs were removed, the Government would still be non-compliant with the Aarhus convention, because it considers only judicial reviews and not merit-based ones, despite both being required under the convention. Legal challenges can be made only on whether the decision-making process was followed properly, so there is no scope to consider substantive issues, including whether a decision was made with full consideration of the evidence. As we saw with the climate-wrecking decisions of the Tory Government to prove the case for the Rosebank oil and gas field, when evidence is ignored, the Supreme Court can step in, but only after a sustained and very costly legal challenge from multiple parties that again focuses primarily on process. The Rosebank decision was focused on the process.”
“That is an eye-watering amount of money that is in direct contravention of the convention, which requires legal procedures not to be prohibitively expensive. As we have heard from a number of members, corporate interests have deep pockets, but individuals struggle to secure legal aid for environmental cases, and, of course, legal aid is not available to charitable organisations. In addition, the loser pays rule means that litigants who lose their case are liable for their opponents’ expenses, which, as the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland notes, can end up costing tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds. In fact, the centre noted that, on a number of occasions, it has decided not to pursue legal challenges because of the direct financial risk to it.”
“The Aarhus convention, if upheld, ensures a route for citizens to legally challenge decisions. However, rather than upholding the principles of the convention, the Scottish Government has consistently been non-compliant with and in breach of article 9 for the past decade. When the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy came to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recently, she was unable to commit to a date or even a time horizon for full compliance. We have heard a similar lack of commitment today from the minister. It is the consistent breach of article 9 that is partly linked to the significant legal costs for environmental cases. As Richard Dixon of ESS highlighted in committee, a judicial review can cost between £30,000 and £40,000 a day.”
“The establishment, through the 2021 act, of Environmental Standards Scotland was critically important, and the body has shown its effectiveness. ESS has stepped in where the European Commission left off, by holding the Government and its agencies to account on issues from air quality to water quality and many more besides. However, in truth, even before Brexit, the Scottish and UK Governments were allowing the environmental governance gap to widen and were failing to commit to reforms, including the establishment of an environmental court. On its own, ESS does not deliver environmental justice for citizens. It cannot even consider individual cases and, even if it could, it could not perform the critically important role of an environmental court.”
“I welcome the Parliament’s focus this afternoon on environmental justice. The loss of our right to a healthy environment as European Union citizens was a Brexit betrayal and, if the SNP Government still has the desire to rejoin Europe, it should enshrine the right to a healthy environment in law without any further delay. The reality is that the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, which was passed in the previous session of Parliament in an attempt to deal with the results of Brexit, ended up as a scrabble to save four decades of environmental rights that we won through working within the European Union. Those were hard-fought-for rights that were forged from the campaigning efforts of citizens movements that had been fighting pollution and destruction over many years in the European Union.”