Equal Opportunities Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Official Report 283KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Access to Justice (Environment) (PE1372)

Item 3 is consideration of petition PE1372, which was submitted by Duncan McLaren on behalf of Friends of the Earth Scotland, on whether access to the Scottish courts is compliant with the Aarhus convention on access to justice in environmental matters. The committee considered the petition on 10 January, and we have received a further submission that outlines aspects of the petition that Friends of the Earth believes not to be covered by the Scottish Government’s consultation on the Aarhus convention.

We must decide on a course of action: we can write to the Scottish Government about the issues that are raised in the supplementary submission; instead of or in addition to that, we can write to the Law Society of Scotland asking for its views on the petitioners’ arguments; or we can agree an alternative, including taking no action. I open the matter for discussion.

I suspect that I was not alone in finding the supplementary submission quite mind-bogglingly technical and difficult to get a complete grasp of. It seems to me that it would be helpful to the committee to allow the Scottish Government to give a response to the very technical points that the petitioners have raised. I think that the committee needs that information from the Scottish Government.

It would be helpful to write to the Law Society of Scotland on the issue, because it would give an independent perspective on what we may be told. My feeling is that it will be impossible for the committee to make sense of the issue without further information, because it is very technical.

I agree.

Is my understanding correct that Annabel has suggested that we write to both the Government and the Law Society?

That is correct. The briefing paper on the petition gave the option of writing to the Scottish Government and/or the Law Society, or of taking an alternative course of action. Members may have a view on an alternative course of action, but I feel that the committee will find it difficult to make progress unless we deploy the first two options to help us understand what is involved in the petition.

I agree. Without having further information, it will be difficult for us to understand the issues clearly. Writing to the Government and the Law Society might help us in that regard. We would at least then have a bit more information for the consultation.

Your predecessor, convener, had a real interest in this petition and has followed it. I, too, have an interest in it. I think that the course of action that Annabel Goldie suggests is correct. It is important to have some balance, because life never gives us what we want and the reality is that budgets are finite. However, I am deeply concerned when I see the word “injustice”, which appears in the final paragraph of the supplementary submission, whether it is prefixed by the word “environmental” or any other. No one wants injustice.

I like to think that I am environmentally conscious, but it is important that we temper expectations. There should not be an unlimited, or even a limited, public purse for legal challenges when such resources may be required for a greater common good. I support the suggested course of action on the petition, but it must be tempered with a realisation that resources are finite. If they are to be expended on what the petition seeks, they will not be expended on something else, which is likely to be criminal or civil legal aid.

Is the committee agreed that we will write to the Scottish Government asking it to comment on the supplementary submission and write to the Law Society for its view?

Members indicated agreement.

Excellent. We agreed to consider item 4 in private, so I ask observers to leave.

14:30 Meeting continued in private until 15:29.