 Good morning, everyone, welcome to the Equal Opportunities members committee, the 20th meeting of 2014. Please, could you set any electronic devices to light mode or off as it interferes with the electronic equipment here in the Parliament. As the convener is not present today and a new deputy convener has yet to be chosen, I am cheering this part of the meeting as the oldest member of the committee. Under rule 12.1, I am standing with Li норм보� nelun. Under rule 12.1 of standing orders, standing orders require that the committee must choose a temporary convener for the meeting. Can I therefore seek nominations, please? Can I nomate yourself? Thank you very much. Thank you. Can I seek the committee's agreement that I am appointed as temporary convener? Thank you. Apologies have been received from Margaret McCulloch, convener, Alec Johnson, and could also put on record the committee's thanks to Marco Biaggio, who had moved on to greater things and wish him well in the future in his new role. Agenda item 1 is declaration of interest. In accordance with section 3 of the code of conduct, I am invited to clear any interest relevant to the committee's remit. I've got no declaration of interest. Agenda item 2 is a choice of deputy convener. On 1 June 2011, the Parliament agreed motion S4M-165, that only Scottish National Party members are eligible to be chosen as a deputy convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee. Therefore, can I now seek nominations? Yes, can I nominate yourself as the deputy convener and welcome you to the committee at the same time? Is he a new member? Thank you very much. Likewise, welcome him. Thank you very much. As you will note, one nomination has been received, and I therefore ask the committee to agree that I, Sandra White MSP, will be chosen as deputy convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee. Thank you very much. Agenda item 3 is subordinate legislation. We have three pieces of subordinate legislation today. The first is the civil partnership prescribed bodies, Scotland regulations, 2014 SSI, 2014 stroke 303. The second is subordinate legislation, the same sex marriage prescribed bodies, Scotland regulations, 2014 SSI, 2014 stroke 305. The third is the marriage and civil partnerships prescribed forms, Scotland regulations, 2014 SSI, 2014 stroke 306. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee are determined that it did not need to draw the instruments to the attention of the Parliament, and the committee can now consider any issues that it wishes to raise in reporting to the Parliament on these instruments. Members should also note that no motions to annul have been received in relation to the instrument. Can I invite comments from any members in regard to the subordinate legislation? The committee agrees that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to these instruments. Agenda item 4 is discussion and petition PE1372 by Friends of the Air Scotland on access to justice in environmental matters. Taking into account work done by the Justice Committee relevant to the petition and correspondence with the Scottish Government, you are asked to consider whether to close the petition or to take another course of action. You may also note that the committee has also received last-minute correspondence from Friends of the Air Scotland. Members may wish to consider whether they should seek legal advice considering this correspondence on the particular issues that have been raised by Friends of the Air. I will just open up to comments. The item seems to be on agenda almost since the start of the committee. I do not know that we are any further forward with clarity, so I think that there would be a benefit in the suggestion that you have made regarding legal advice. Can I draw the committee's attention to two very recent papers? In addition to the papers where there are references to occasions that have been raised by myself about, if I particularly can put on record the issue of the fifth report, the stage 1 report in court reform bill, when the Justice Committee at paragraph 38 said, and I quote, "...the committee notes the differences between the requirements of the artist's convention and the scope of judicial review in Scots law. The committee is sympathetic to calls for the introduction of an environmental tribunal in Scotland." More recently, last week, during questions to the new cabinet secretary for justice, I asked on the issue of whether it would undertake to establish an environmental court and whether, indeed, he believed that our house convention was being complied with. To quote Mr Matheson, "...I am always open to considering how we can improve access to our justice in an appropriate way." Later on, he went on to say, "...the requirements of having different specialist courts and I am open to considering how specialisation can be continued in the future." In addition to that, in fact, subsequent to that, I have posed a question to the Scottish Government, and that is question 23460, and that is to ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made on delivering the commitment in the SNP 2011 manifesto regarding an environmental court. Felly, with regard to those two live issues, the consideration by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and that question that I lodged, can I respectfully suggest that we keep the petition open and get some further advice, indeed, on where we stand with our house convention? Thank you very much, John. I know your particular interests having been on the Justice Committee along with John. Also, I think that it's very good suggestion along with the legal advice and probably put it to the committee at the end of the discussions. Thank you, convener. I am on the Justice Committee as well. I do recall, yes, John, that the committee was sympathetic to having a special court, but there is no time table putting on it. We could have put it on the bill to have it straight away, but the committee didn't push for us. That's one of the points, but it seems to me as particularly with the last submission, the last submission from Scotland, it's very, very clear that we still think that the Scottish Government is not binding to the international Irish obligations. But I failed to understand this because the last letter from the Cabinet Secretary has been very, very clear. The Scottish Government complies the Irish Convention and furthermore, no legal challenge against the Scottish Government made on the grounds of not compliance with the Convention has been successful. Is that part, I'm not sure about, are we not flogging the doors trying to get an answer which we have already? That's the main point to keep it open to decide if the Scottish Government is, yes or no, compliant. I think we've got the answer from the Cabinet Secretary already. That's the main point. I have no objection for it to be closed. John, do you want to make a comment? If we're going to take legal advice and leave it open just now, I'm certainly comfortable with that. It would be interesting to hear the Cabinet Secretary. I think one of the suggestions was that we should have the Cabinet Secretary at the committee and ask him about it. I don't have a particular problem with that. I think my main point would be just that we're talking about access to justice and that is not a black and white issue. It's on a scale. We're going to get a yes or no answer. At some stage, somebody is going to have to make a judgment. As I say, I'm happy that we take more advice on that. I think that it's part of a wider issue. I don't think that there's good access to justice in this country at all right across the board. If you're poor enough, you get legal aid. If you're rich enough, you don't need it. Most of the people in the middle don't have access to justice. This is not just an issue about the environment. It's a much wider issue. What I would not want to see is that the environment suddenly gets put to the top of the queue and everybody else doesn't get access to justice. I totally agree with the fact that there should be access to justice for environmental matters. I think that we take on board what all three members have said and I take on board what Christian McEw has said. I think that what they've highlighted is the fact that there was a court case in Europe and I don't think that it would do us any harm to seek legal advice in that particular aspect. In particular, what both John and I have said, I would be assuming that when we get the legal advice, the timescale would be roughly the same time as John would get his answers from the correct question that he put in, that we could look at both at the same time. The expected answer date is the 15th of this month. I wonder if I could add, because I don't think that there's any conflict between what anyone said, but the mere fact that four years on we're still talking about it suggests that there isn't the clarity and no one is suggesting, for instance, that the Friends of Earth are doing anything other than acting good faith. As John says, often these things are matters of opinion. What's obviously best is if we can clarify matters without that opinion having to be necessarily given by a court. That's the ideal situation. I think that there is a lack of clarity at the moment, and I think that further advice would help us to make an appropriate decision. Does the committee agree that we continue with the petition, keep it open until we get the legal advice and obviously the answer to John's question? Thank you. We now conclude the public part of the Equal Opportunities Committee, and I will suspend the meeting for the committee to move into private session.