THE Scottish Government has been accused of an “unlawful failure” to consider the establishment of an environmental court.
Ministers were obliged to consult on the effectiveness of governance arrangements relating to the environment to ensure continuity in the wake of Brexit.
Part of this involved considering whether current access to justice on environmental issues was effective and if the establishment of an environmental court could improve outcomes.
According to the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS) – a charitable organisation campaigning for a Scottish Environment Court – the loss of access to the Court of Justice for the EU and the European Commission has resulted in less recourse to justice for environmental failures.
The ERCS has also pointed to a lack of a parliamentary commissioner or connected court process to fine the government or other parties.
READ MORE: Edinburgh University faces transphobia row over book launch event
However, the Scottish Government’s report concluded that it did “not see any strong argument for a change in the balance of parliamentary, administrative and judicial roles in decision making on environmental matters, or for the creation of a specialist court”.
It added: "Our objective must be to protect environmental standards and rights without individuals and communities having to go to court, a process that can be daunting and stressful."
A statement issued by the ERCS expressed “deep disappointment with the poor quality of the report and the unlawful failure to consider the establishment of an environmental court”.
They accuse the report’s authors of superficial analysis and of approaching the exercise with “pre-determined” conclusions.
A spokesperson for the ERCS told The National: “Although the Scottish Government claims to be committed to addressing the climate and biodiversity crisis, its review of environmental governance provides no analysis of the entrenched environmental governance problems that plague Scotland - from a lack of legal enforcement against polluters to the limited implementation of environmental laws - and offers little in the way of constructive solutions.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer Labour conference speech interrupted by protester
“In refusing to consider the establishment a dedicated environmental court, the Scottish Government has missed an open goal.
“There is abundant evidence from more than 2000 environmental courts and tribunals operating around the world that this system works - increasing access to justice, addressing fragmented routes to remedy, and developing judicial expertise on the environment.
“Yet in rejecting the proposal out of hand, the government has demonstrated an unlawful failure to meet its statutory duties, and left Scotland's environment unprotected.
“We urge the Scottish Government to rethink its approach before another opportunity is wasted."
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government is determined to protect and enhance our environment, and to uphold and improve environmental standards.
"We recognise that there are a range of ways in which that can be achieved, and we encourage everyone who has an interest in this area to respond to our consultation, which closes on October 13.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel