This item seems to have been on the agenda almost since I started on the committee. I do not know that we are any further forward or that there is any clarity, so I think that there could be benefit in your suggestion about seeking legal advice.
I draw the committee’s attention to two recent contributions, in addition to the references in the committee paper to occasions on which the issue has been raised by me and other members.
The Justice Committee, at paragraph 38 of its stage 1 report on the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill, stated:
“The Committee notes the differences between the requirements of the Aarhus Convention and the scope of judicial review in Scots Law. The Committee is sympathetic to calls for the introduction of an environmental tribunal for Scotland.”
Last week, during questions to the new Cabinet Secretary for Justice, I asked Michael Matheson whether he would undertake to establish an environmental court and whether he believed that the Aarhus convention was being complied with. He said:
“I am always open to considering how we can improve access to our justice in an appropriate way.”
He went on to say:
“I recognise the importance of having different specialist courts, and I am open to considering how such specialisation can be continued in the future.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 25 November 2014; c 44.]
Subsequently, I lodged question S4W-23460:
“To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made on delivering the commitment in the SNP 2011 manifesto regarding an environmental court.”
Given the live issues, and the fact that the cabinet secretary will consider the question that I have lodged, I respectfully suggest that we keep the petition open and get some further advice on where we stand with regard to the Aarhus convention.