 Welcome to the Equal Opportunities Committee. It's the fifth meeting of 2016. Can I ask everyone to set in electronic devices to flight mode or switch off please? We've received apologies from Drew Smith. Agenda item 1. The first agenda item to state is a decision on taking business in private. You're asked to agree a legacy paper at agenda item 4 in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you. At agenda item 2, we're considering the petition PE1372. When we considered this petition last year, we requested information from the Scottish legal aid board and the Scottish Government. There are responses and an update from the petitioner and included in our papers. We have to make a decision today on whether we would like to close this petition or include it in our legacy report. We can also ask the Scottish Government for an update on its plans for an option paper on an environmental court. Do any members want to make any comment? The petition has been about for a long time. I recall that it was mentioned that I've been on the Equal Opportunities Committee since its inception. It was discussed at one of the early meetings, if not the very first meeting. We have some more information now, but what we haven't lost is the concerns that I share of Friends of the Earth. I'm grateful for the detailed letter that it sent to you in 22 February. It highlighted a couple of the issues, the time constraints that are placed on applications for protective expenses order and judicial review. The view that many would share, not just connected with environmental matters, is that legal action remains as a whole, prohibitive and expensive for most individuals, communities and NGOs. What we know is that we don't have the cost for community groups and NGOs because they are not eligible for legal aid. Very belatedly, with a matter of weeks to go, the Scottish Government has announced that it will consult on the issue. For that reason, I think that the committee should keep the petition open and place it in the legacy paper at which time the Friends of the Earth view that the committee launches its own inquiry into whether Scotland complies or not would be appropriate, but I think that it is a decision for another day. I will differ a little bit on the tone of John Finnie talking about this, of course, but as I'll come up quite a bit about it, the reason I differ a little bit on the tone is that at the Justice Committee we talked about it and it is compliant, is what we found out, but of course at that time the Scottish Government had said that they look at it at a later date. On 1 December we can see on the letter that it was decided that the Scottish Government would meet the commitment to publish an option paper in an environment court, and that was to be welcome, but that was what the Justice Committee wanted to do. We should keep it open, hoping that in its next Parliament we will see a little bit light on this, but I want to reiterate what we did at the Justice Committee saying that it is compliant. I think that it remains to be seen, and certainly there is an open case for the United Kingdom and Scotland as a separate legal system, but that is highlighted in there. However, for the voice of any doubt, it is to be welcome that there is to be this consultation. I would want to give it an impression otherwise, albeit that it has taken four years and several months. I had a technical question to the convener. What is the status of a petition at the end of a parliamentary session when the Parliament prorogues? Does a petition remain alive, or does it fall? What happens to it? The standing order is silent on the position of petitions at this point, so it is really open to quite a lot of interpretation. There are options open to you that you can either close it or you can keep open at this point and carry it on through legacy. That is the latest advice. I think that I am fair from what the clerk has helpfully advised us, convener, that not actively keeping it open would perhaps allow it to fall. I think that that would be unfortunate, because it seems to me that there is a legitimate issue of concern here. I think that, as the environment becomes ever more prominent in our considerations, not just as politicians but as for the public in general, there is a need to look at this issue. I think that it would be unfortunate if, by default, the petition fell off the committee's radar screen. Given what the Scottish Government is proposing to do, I am very much in sympathy with John Finnie and Christian Allard saying that we should keep it alive in some form in this committee, but it is probably not a lot that the committee can do, but our successor committee certainly could do something. I think that everything has been said that I was going to say. I think that we do have a consensus here. In the previous life, I was on the Justice Committee when this was discussed. Christian Allard, the evidence that we were giving was that, basically, we were compliant, but we carried it forward, as John Finnie has said, for a number of years. Like the others in the committee, I would be happy to carry it forward to the legacy paper and, obviously, await the minister's paper, which I am presuming will come to the committee and be added to the legacy paper, or do we discuss it again, or do we just add it to the legacy paper? The minister has said in his letter to us that, as he said in the first of December, the Scottish Government will, before the end of this parliamentary term in 2016, meet the SNP manifesto commitment to publish an options paper on the environmental court. There is no actual date as to when that will be produced, but he says that his officials are company draught in that option paper. We could, if you want, write to him and ask him for a date when that paper will be produced, if you like, and also include the petition in our legacy report and make recommendations for the next committee to look at it. The minister answered a normal question on that the other day, and it is imminent, so I think that we could just include that in our legacy paper. I will be all agreed on that. Moving on to agenda item 3 is consideration of a draft annual report for the parliamentary year from 11 May 2015 to 23 March 2016. Has any members got any comments that they want to make about the annual report? convene, I just said a couple of points to observe. Under the paragraph on female genital mutilation, would it be appropriate to make reference to the member's debate that our colleague John Mason secured and the meeting thereafter that we had with some representatives? Can we do that? I think that that would be appropriate, because I felt that that debate was very important. It enjoyed the unanimous support of the committee. Anybody else get any comments? It would not be me if it were not a tedious, pedantic matter of spelling. I think that it was somewhere with reference to the visit to... I don't know, was it? Oh yes, it's paragraph 25, Other Activities, the third line, this need to visits. I rather suspect that that's meant to be led. This is purely to confirm to all I read the papers. Okay. That was put there deliberately to make sure that everybody did. Has anybody else got any other comments that they would like to make about the paper? No, so we're okay with that yet. Okay then, that's fine. That concludes the public part of today's meeting. Our next meeting will take place on Thursday 10 March, and I will now suspend the meeting for the committee to move into private session.