 Rhawnotypes, everybody. In me, I welcome everyone to the 10th Public Petitions Committee meeting 2015. I remind everyone to switch off mobile phones and electronic devices as they do interfere with the sound system. We do not have any apologies for today's meeting. The first item of business today is consideration of the decision. The first item of business seithio i gael i agendau i item 4 o bach o'r gweithio ymwyfyrnodau. Rwyf yn gweithio i gael i item private? Rwyf yn gweithio i item private. Rwyf yn gweithio i item business o ddod o ddod o ddod o ddod o ddod o ddod o ddod o ddod o ddod o ddod. The first new petition is by P.E. 1560 by John Buston on local authority planning. Appears procedure. Members have a note by the clerk and a spice briefing. Can I welcome the petitioner John Buston to the meeting? Mr Buston, I believe that you want to say a few words before we move into questions. Yes, this is one of two points I want to make. I sent some diagrams yesterday and I believe you all got copies. What I've done on these three diagrams is set out the basics of the case. If you look at the first flow diagram, which is the current one, sorry, the first one is my recommendation. What I'm saying is that the council complaint procedure should be concluded and the inaccurate report of handling should be corrected right at the start by the planning authority before it goes to the ward councillors. The ward councillors are involved. It only becomes a decision by virtue of the fact that they don't call in. In effect, they are taking a decision themselves before it moves on. There are two paths that it can go to. On my recommended, there is a correct ROH that goes right through the whole system. If you look at the second sheet, which is the current one, there are two procedures, the review procedure and the complaint procedure. The complaint procedure stops at the SPSO because the SPSO cede examination of the facts to the local review body. You can see on the second one that it is corrected by the review procedure, which takes place after the decision has been made. The ROH, if it is inaccurate, goes to full councillors inaccurate, but I would expect that the minister would correct it at the next stage. The third diagram is what actually happened in the planning application that I identified. It was enacted all the way through because the local review body didn't review the issue. I would say that I picked out one issue to make things simple. There was about 16 or 17, but I picked out one that I could define, put in there and work as an example for the whole case that I'm making. I've summarised this on the last sheet. What I've said is that the LRB is only involved in the planning process by ward councillor determination, and their involvement may not occur if an accurate ROH were available as a basis for decision. It's therefore inappropriate for them to be involved prior to the ROH being corrected. The other point that I found a bit strange is that the LRB is professionally advised by the planning authority, and there are doubts whether the advice received on technical planning issues would be sufficiently independent. On the train coming down the smear, I notice that you also have a paper, the preshield, and I would say that this, without making it what looks to be misleading as well, because it misses out the stage that the world councillors are involved in within this report. It's not inaccurate, but it's not the full picture, but I wouldn't expect the information centre to correct things in similar ways. I wouldn't expect the planning authority to correct a report that they've generated. That basically is the case I'm making. The other thing is that I'm not clear. I had the complaint, which you've identified within the report, and it wasn't examined. There must be something wrong with the system if a different complaint isn't examined. Now, whether this is a procedural or operational failure, I'm not quite sure, because obviously I can't get the answers on that. I can't get the full picture from the local authority or the SPSO. What I've done here is just set out the basic facts. If those facts are obtained, I could perhaps comment more on whether it's a procedural or operational in my opinion. Thank you, Mr Whiston, for your short presentation. Do you think that this is something that could be dealt with by guidance as opposed to requiring a change in legislation, either primary or subordinate legislation, that planning guidance by government could negate the issue? I don't think it could be done by guidance. The situation would never have risen if the answer had been provided straight away by the planning authority. I wouldn't be sitting here having followed this through for the last two or three years. To some extent, the operational way of thinking was handled was poor, but I do think that if there's extra guidance given, so it is handled better than fine. It's just the issue about additional guidance versus legislation, just so that the committee is clear. Additional guidance means that additional guidance and local authority, the planning authority, can then take note of the guidance and apply the guidance in the way in which they see fit. Part of the issue that you've raised in terms of SPSO is that it does not include the local councillor element to that, and having been a local councillor myself, I know in the authority that I served on the local councillor engagement where it was a delegated planning decision to an officer, we would receive a weekly planning list of applications that had been submitted. Only if that local elected member then requested further information would the further information be provided. If that further information was requested or for it to go to full planning meeting, then that planning application would be dealt with by the delegated officer. It's trying to address the issue that I've raised in terms of the local ward members being involved in a decision and how that would fit into potentially additional guidance being given to local authorities. How would you see that working out? I would say that the ward councillors have got to be involved if they're going to make a meaningful decision of whether to call it in or not. They've got to look at the fact of the case. Therefore, I wouldn't have expected them just to look at a list and not call the report of handling in. Otherwise, they wouldn't have any idea of what the background to the decision was. As I said, I know from my own experience the basic information that the local authority has provided to the local elected member, and it still does. There's another member in this room who will be aware of the same authority. However, the issue is that it would be the planning applicant's name, the officer dealing with it, the reference number and, say, for example, an extension to a dwelling house or a garage being added into the grounds. That's the type of basic information that the elected member has. I would say that the majority of those descriptors are not signed off, but just looked at. Unless it raises alarm bells, local elected members don't ask for it or don't ask for further information on the planning application. Therefore, the issue is do you think that the procedure is correct that we have delegated authority to officers to deal with planning applications that do not have to go through the full planning process? Yes. I would assume that the ward councillors, because they're in a position where they've got to make a decision to call in, would in fact want to have a look at this report. The bare bones of the thing don't tell you anything. It's a plan application for three bedroom house, export, et cetera, no objections. It maybe says that, but I think they've got to go a little bit deeper in their capacity as ward councillors. Just to correct you, the ward councillor could only make or request that the planning application be heard by a committee. They can't make a decision on the merits of the planning application. In Aberdeenshire, as we all know from the examples of the history of planning applications, localised planning hearings are held to determine the planning applications if they go through that process. It's really just trying to work out the best way that you think that we could deal with the petition that would not only satisfy yourself but also bring about changes that might impact on the other planning authorities throughout Scotland. Personally, I think that it's a fairly big decision because I would much rather my case was heard by the minister and that there was independent review of the case. There are things like, I think they call them plans, planning advice notes, which are produced by the minister, which in my case I thought have been disregarded by the local planning authority. I think that I have a better hearing on the opinions of the case if it had gone through the full council, they might have accepted it and then moved down to the minister because it would have been assessed professionally by people who give the overall Scottish guidelines. Your petition calls, Mr Buston, for the Scottish Government to either eliminate or amend the notice of review for a period of three months. Do you not believe that if we were to eliminate it, there might be a concern with regards to what kind of impact it might have on other areas of neighbouring properties or for new developments? It depends on the time. I've said from experience it took three months to get the council decision. In fact, the council response came after the application date for a local review meeting and the SPSO response came six months later. I think there was some time taken in that, because it was only a fairly unusual case. I would say that if you had a limit of, say, a year or six months with caveats, that would be fine. The planning system currently operates independently of any local authority complaints procedure. Do you ideally like to see them both being linked? No, I think that there's a case for separation, but what I'm asking is that the integrity of the report is examined by the council complaints procedure and therefore it goes through the local authority, the council, it moves on to the SPSO, the SPSO, give a decision and it's fair in right at the start. All they do is say, well, we think this is wrong, this is misleading and hopefully the local authority will then amend the report of handling and it will go back in at the start and the planning process continues with an accurate report of handling. I'm not saying that the planning method has changed at all. What I am saying is that it should start off with an accurate basis, because it's weak if you've got these an accurate ROH going right through the system. So you did say, I would take it from your answers here, that rather than see the process eliminated, you'd like to see perhaps it amended, you did mention between six and 12 months extension. Do you think that that's perhaps, is there any other area where we won't know if that's perhaps a wee bit too long? Would maybe four weeks extension around that be more helpful? I think it could be longer and I think there could be a caveat that providing there's been an application made through the council complaints procedure, which should allow the council complaints procedure to finish. I can see the concerns that you were raising about extending it too long, because then it would have to be a backlog of business on the hands of the council. Is there any other questions? For no further questions, could I perhaps ask the committee what action we would like to take in this petition? There is an issue that I find very complex and technical. We are all keen to avoid a change that we then impact upon delay, and it's how it all brings it together, which is why I was asking about whether that could be dealt with without legislative change, which I think would be problematic. It does seem to be writing to the Government to see whether that could be dealt with, whether they think that there is an issue, because there does seem to be something missing here, and if so, what plans they may care to take? Could I maybe add to that that we may be right to heads of plan in Scotland to maybe a better field of the city? John? I agree with the two recommendations, but I could also suggest that we write to planning aid Scotland and planning democracy to organisations that might have an interest in the planning process just to get an alternative perspective from those out there who are working and advising in the planning field. I thank you, Mr Burstyn, for attending. I will now suspend for a minute to allow you to renew your petitioners to take your seat. The next petition is PE1561 by Karen Gray on behalf of Rabbits Require rights Scotland on pet rabbit welfare. Members have a note by clerk in a spice briefing. Can I welcome Karen Gray to the meeting? I now invite you, Ms Gray, to speak to your petition. No more than five minutes to explain what your petition seeks and we will then move to questions. First of all, thank you for having me here, taking the petition serious. I am not the most confident speaker, so I will try not to rabbit on too much. We need to give well rabbits that do exist. Outwith, I know that people's views of them are not always great. We have heard of stew recipes a million times. People hunt them, they are a person of wealth, but domestic rabbits do exist in really large numbers. There are no controls over breeding, so that is a knock-on effect on the welfare standards that are there, because the breeders are unlicensed. They have gone into visit to see what their set-up is like to ensure proper diet and veterinary treatment and so forth. Also, the health problems are due to overbreeding, crossbreeding and so forth. There is a lot of disease there and, possibly, genetic defects like dental issues. That is a big problem that can be genetic. Obviously, I have also noted that the EU is introducing breeders and sellers animal health law from 2020, but again, there is still no mention of rabbits in that. Fuel Scotland can set a standard to either implement legislation or include rabbits in current legislation that already exists in the licensing of animal dealers, which covers cats and dogs, to get rabbits and a bit of protection for the welfare. As for a ban on pet shop sales that is similar to the Audiences in the North of USA in Canada, it is not that we want pet rabbits to disappear altogether. It is just that they are out of control with selling on it. People still view them as cheap, easy, cuddly, child-friendly, and far from it. They are one of the most difficult pets that I have had. I have specific needs to their species, so they are certainly not cheap. They are not cuddly. They do not like being picked up. Of course, they look cute, but, as I said, they are just like little furry moans that are wrapped in fluff, to be honest. The pet industry has very little to change those views. Recently, there was a pet shop in Cymarnock. It was one of the pictures. That was one of many companies that used Facebook and so forth to advertise their businesses. It is great for kids. The kids would love a bunny for Easter. It is like poppies for Christmas. It still carries us on in New York. No, because it leads to high-level neglect. What people do not realise is that rabbits are driven for the need to breed. Obviously, the predators out there that are constantly breeding in domestic rabbits are no different. They can reach up sexual maturity from about 16 weeks. It depends on the breed. If you are taking a highly agile, active animal that is raging with hormones and you are sticking it in a hodge, the kids are going. People say that they are aggressive, but it is not that they are aggressive. They are just being denied their natural behaviours. You are locking them basically in a prison. They are fearful of the humans coming in. Obviously, they are getting mishandled. Kids are noisy. As I said, they are not to say that they make a good family pet just not for kids. They are certainly not on their own. The estimate is that there are about a million rabbits in the UK. Sorry, I am lost here. The pet business world, and this is from pet shops alone. Rabbits sales have maintained their numbers of about £1 million, but that is not taking into account your private adverts online sales. You are looking at approximately £1.3 million. There are a lot of surrenders because people are misunderstanding what they are taking on. Our rescues are struggling, and it is not just financial burden on having an animal there. It is the health problems that they come in with because they have been fed the wrong diet. They have not been to the vet. They have abscesses and dental issues. They are waiting lists are excessive. It is hard to find homes for them as well. It is not just a case of giving some. They want to make sure that people have the correct welfare in one place to give. They are a good home. They do not want to send it back to another neglected situation. All the well pet shop online trading and all that, they are just continuing to breed and sell them or give them away even. As I said, pets at home began a microchipping scheme in September, roughly last year. Already, the SSPCA has seen microchipped rabbits. They assume that they are coming from pets at home, but they have already seen them in their care. The House Rabbits Society in America recognise that it works well, but it varies from state to city in America, so there are variations. They would like it to be spread out further. As I said, it works well. They feel that it is something that tackles the welfare issues. As for creating minimum standards, there is just one hutch. I bought that not long ago so that I could make a point. The company has ignored my complaints. As I said, it says that it is three feet in the box, but internally it is only 2.7 long. It is only 1.4 high at one end and it slopes down, so it is 1.1 foot at the other end and only 1.4 feet wide. I put one of my rabbits in, his average-sized rabbit, just to get a 40 on for compact. He could not even sit up properly. He is talking to his average-sized rabbit and needs at least two to three feet to fully stretch out to lie down to rest. Two to three feet again just to stand up fully and stretch their bodies. Rabbit welfare studies for the hutch is not enough campaign. They estimate about six to seven feet for one rabbit just to take three hops. If you are confining a high-lagile animal into that, it is cruel. We need to set standards. Minimum recommendations is a hutch measure at least six feet long, two feet wide and two feet high, but attached to a run of at least eight feet. The animals are allowed to come and go as they please, carrying out their natural behaviours and most active in the mornings and in the evenings. It is not just a case of when you remember to go and let them out to give them a wee run around and give them a couple of hours of exercise. As I say, it is just not enough. Buying hutches that size smaller, sometimes even just if you buy one four foot five foot, is still not enough. As I say, they get lonely, bored, frustrated and obviously being confined. Rabbits have been shown to develop osteoporosis after only six months have been kept in a small cage because a light and fragile bone structure leads to thinning of the bones. It makes our bones more easier to break some fractures and muscle wastage is another issue. We really need to set, obviously, to improve welfare and make sure that there are good products there. Again, that goes with the dietary stuff. There is too much over-feeding of commercial food stuff as a rabbit. The mainstay diet should be hay grasses, so they are eating pellets, commercial food in itself. They are not wearing down their teeth, so their teeth are growing. People get into pet shops, they are seeing bad standards all the time. Pet shops are perceived to be the mainstay experts and people are just getting off the street. They are seeing all those bad examples, bad products, but they think that it is normal. As we say, we have been sold and neglected to our rabbits, I can say, because there is just not enough knowledge being passed on to customers. That comes down to the canalises. I appreciate that you may have a lot more to say. If you just want to come to a final point in your presentation, we will move on to questions. Again, that brings us to the licence laws. It really varies from authority to authority. It is based on the Pet Animals Act 1951. It is old, it is outdated. Terms of licence are pretty basic in the wording. There is no actual enforcement, so there is either lack of knowledge and adequate training in financial restraint. We are putting in complaints about conditions we have found, and nobody is really following up on them. As I say, one rabbit ended up buying out of pet shops, not what we can do, but she ended up costing me over £1,285 in veterinary fees for a month from buying her. South Ayrshire Council ignored that. I sold a sick rabbit and it is against the terminal licence. Thank you very much, Karen. You have done really well in your presentation. It seems to me that you are referring to some form of regulatory regime. There is sale and there is possession. Who do you think is best placed to carry out such a regime monitoring guidance? Is it local authority? Is it an animal welfare charity? Or who? We met recently with Mike Flynn and a couple of other SSPCA. They said that they oversee the licence condition in Inverness, and they seem to feel that it works well. Obviously, that is for the SSPCA to decide if they would be willing to carry it out. As I said, the pet shop that I got my rabbit from, I complained to the SSPCA. The licence inspector went in with a vet. We do not know the vet's background, so it is another issue, because rabbits are an exotic species. If you have not got an up-to-date training in their health problems, all they would have seen really if I left a rabbit there was a fat rabbit. They said that there were no problems. One of them is dirty, horrible, run-down pet shops. I am sorry to say that, but it is true. It is just dismal. However, because the licence authority says that we cannot find any problems, the SSPCA's inspector's hands were tied, so they cannot really deal with any further. Jackson, you have obviously got sympathy and affinity for the species. I know nothing about rabbits other than that. I have seen them like everybody else does. I am interested, because I suppose that what you caricature as the appeal in terms of the way they are marketed to children. Insofar as I have ever known anybody to have a rabbit, that has actually been usually the case. They have had it because they have children. I am far less aware of it being like guinea pigs and other things, a pet that exists in a house without children. However, I understood you to say that it is, in many respects, not a suitable pet. Rabbits do not like to be picked up. They do not like to be curled or intimidated by the presence of other humans. What is the appeal of a rabbit as a pet? I am feeling new to it. I have got my first rabbit on a whim. I will admit to that. I did buy on a bit on a whim. I did not really realise what it was taking on. My rabbits are all house rabbits, only because I have not really got a space out of the barrel. No, they are funny, they are active, they are cheeky, they are mischievous. I cannot eat a hobnob, I have got a rabbit hanging off the end of my biscuit. They are really affectionate. They will jump off and they will sit and snuggle into it. It is just a fact. They are a prey. As soon as you pick them up off the ground, they cannot do that in an instant fear. It is not to say that you have got to be able to handle them, being an owner, you have got to be able to groom them and clip their nails. It is just getting them used to being handled. As kids, they just want something to mollycoddle. As I said, it is not to say that they do not make a good family pet, but I would, especially young children, hold them more responsible. It is for the adult to teach their child good welfare, not just get a wee cute thing that they can put in the cage and terrorise sadly. Is it your experience then that there are pet dealers who handle the sale and care of rabbits more appropriately? Is it a variable lack of awareness or do you feel it is a universal one? I do not think so at all. There are a good few knowledgeable people in pet shops and stuff that have come across, but overall, largely speaking, it is pretty poor out there. You try to make complaints. Obviously, people are defensive, which is fair enough, but you are making polite complaints. I get told that there is a pet shop in Trun. Basically, I am not listening to you, that man is getting money in his pocket away, but he had rabbits in a tiny wee, because they were at eye level. Instead of having them in a big pen in the ground, he had them further up. It is against the stalking density straight away in the terms of licence for the spacer or loud in the cage. Generally, that is an attitude that does not care us. I am sorry to say that. Obviously, your petition is about pet rabbits looking for measures to enhance their welfare. I am sure that most people would agree that there should be a minimum standard. In a way, that is done with other animals through a code of practice. Codes of practice apply to animals that are kept as pets, but they are also to animals that are used for meat production. Rabbits would be both. How would that affect a code of practice? Should it apply to both? I am not saying that there is no place for a code of practice, but I think that initially we need to set the minimum welfare in place. Code of practice is just, I suppose, it would be good for, like Mike Flynn says, it would be good for them to have a clear code so they know what checks to be and then they can enforce improvements on owner as it stands just now. As long as that rabbit is getting food and water and it is hatched, there is very little they can do unless, obviously, there is cruelty or neglect there, but they cannot say, oh, that hatch is, well, unless it is really tiny, but if they get to see something about three or four feet of hatch and the owner says, oh, we give it, I know we are out every day, the hands are tied, really, they cannot. For the SSPC enforcement, but I think just to get the rabbits up to the same level as cats and dogs, because they are the third most popular pet in the UK, but again, they are the most neglected just because they are so frail available and people do not understand them in the product you buy, are detrimental to health. Consider then the code of practice does cover pets and knows for me. Do you think that there should be a differential in the code of practice? I believe that there already is codes for farming animals, farming rabbits but not domestic, so it is kind of weird that farming rabbits, laboratory rabbits, have actually got better welfare in place than domestic rabbits, so I have got none, so there should be something there. Maybe just one final question. You did say that you had house rabbits, could you maybe for me, could you tell me whether they prefer a lettuce or a hobnob? Well, they shouldn't be eating my hobnob and thoughts, but no, they don't get fed lettuce, lettuce is bad for them, but I mean, 80 per cent, hey, that's a kind of mainstay, they get fresh greens, kale, parsley, I don't know, watercress, a better fed than me, that's for sure, but yeah, I mean, giving half a chance, I'll come up and try and pinch my dinner, but no. I just wanted to ask a question in terms of once a pet has actually been sold to someone, how would they then monitor and police it, because as we've already indicated that most of the rabbits are sold are for children and the lifetime of a pet is going to be with a child and now if that's the case, how would you suggest that the policy would be policed if the child is the one with the pet, most of the time anyway, and I'm sure many of occasion it would be unsupervised, how would you protect that animal, how would you please it? Well, certainly with the ordinances that we cannot, you know, stop selling them as frail in pet shops, but bring it introducing similar to the ordinances that exist in America, and that they are the pet shops, selected pet shops, not all, obviously, work with rescues, so it's basically the rescues that are doing the checks, people are, you know, giving a cooling off period to research or giving all the literature and then they're obviously matched up and so forth, so it's just basically reducing the numbers that's going through sales and, you know, obviously helping the ship. Rabbits aren't ever going to disappear, and we don't want them to disappear, we just want them protected and, you know, just stop breeding them and selling them like sweeties, which is basically harming, so, you know, I mean, there is, well, most independent rescues will work with owners to ensure they have the good welfare and place proper housing, understand their diet and vet needs and so forth, so. Yeah, I don't think you would trust my question, the question is how do you actually police it then? I mean, the rabbits which actually end up in households, and with children most of the time, and many of occasions it will be unsupervised, how do you propose that would be policed? Well, I suppose that would be for the rescues to, you know, a little home check, if you know what. I think we need to give people guidance, and we can't just throw the responsibility to somebody without actually advising on what measures that would be available to them. It's not as if it's a TV that they can have a ban outside, you know, detecting a rabbit in the house, you know, we need to be practical about this, and this is a very serious question that if you have a child with a pet, how do you propose to monitor that treatment of that animal with that child? So, I don't respond thoroughly to really teach a good welfare to the kids, I mean, you can't monitor people with cats and dogs either, so it's... So, it's a similar situation, you're not looking for anything different from what's already in place then, with the exception of the sale? Yeah, well, it's a serious and the sales cannot, you know, get enough welfare. There's no guarantee that the sales would be reduced. I mean, that's the point I'm trying to make. You don't think it would be reduced, no? No, I mean, how do you propose? So, I'm just not having them available in every picture, really, rabbits. Okay. John. Thank you. Good morning, Karen. One of the things that you haven't asked for in your main petition is that the accurate information and advice is given to potential owners, because there are... Being a parent and having, you know, a daughter who always wanted a rabbit and, you know, going to one of the rescue centres and getting a couple of rabbits from there and knowing the history of the rabbits from that rescue centre and the medical needs of the rabbits that we actually took from the rescue centre, I know that the issues are around there. I also know the inoculation regime that needs to take place with rabbits, which many owners don't understand about. You've mentioned the main body of your petition. You've referred to veterinary advice and making sure they get regular check-ups. You mentioned in your contribution about getting... If they're not outside of the particular of house rabbits, they need their toenails regularly clipped because they don't have the natural instinct to scratch in the ground. So it's those kind of issues. So I was quite surprised that you didn't say it, as well as, you know, not completely banning the sale of the rabbits and appropriate pet shops, but making sure that they're similar to the rescue centres that appropriate advice, information and guidance is given, including the particularly, more importantly, the health implications of maintaining a rabbit and also the potential age span or lifespan of a rabbit, because, you know, many people think, like cats and dogs, rabbits last 10, 15, 20 years. Unfortunately, rabbits have got a shorter lifespan than that, and it's just trying to get that message over to... And how do you get that message over in relation to the sale and whether or not appropriate sales are paying place? Because you did mention it, one pet owner said, that man's got money in his pocket and I'm going to sell him a rabbit. How do you stop that? Oh, in the terms of licence, they're supposed to be providing you care advice at the point of sale anyway. So whether it's displayed in a sign or you get a leaflet of verbal, it's already allegedly in the terms of licence, but, yeah, no, there does need to be more education awareness is key. As I say, when Dobby's Garden Centre signs up saying rabbit is only four to five years lifespan, you're like, no, rabbits can live up to 12 years, possibly even more, depending on the breed. So even the advice I've got is not consistent. So, you know, but as I say, within the terms of licence, if implement it, look, I can't remember the exact name, it's the new model pet vending 2013, their virtual gets set requirements, conditions on how rabbits are handled, housed in fed, et cetera, so on in the pet shop and, you know, the care advice being full and correct. Any further questions? Could I ask my to what action that would like to take in this petition? I think there is an underlying issue here. I was taken by the comment made about rabbits being classified as exotic pets having been around the SSPCA welfare centres. It's not simply rabbits, never mind cats and dogs, but chinchillas, salamanders, exotic birds, you name it. We live in a global world and animals are now being traded and openly sold. I don't necessarily know what the solution is here, but I think an issue has been raised and it would therefore be appropriate to ask the Government for their take on what may be their thoughts with regard to rabbits and perhaps even the wider issue, although that isn't the petition as such before us, but certainly also raising it with the SSPCA and the pet industry federation. It seems to me that there's something there. Just what can be done, I don't know and there's a difference between the point of sale and how you monitor and look after given there's statutory powers and animal welfare presumably for the SSPCA, but initially flagging up the issue given that it does seem to have been commercialised by some big firms, never mind small firms. I was just wondering, Kenny, whether it might be more appropriate to write to both organisations that you mentioned before writing to the Scottish Government, then we could give them a full picture of what the other parts of the industry are saying. Agree with that? Thank you very much, colleagues, and thank you very much, Carn, for attending and giving me a presentation. I'll now suspend for a minute. The final new petition today is PE1567 by Donna O'Halloran on investigating on ascertained deaths, suicide and fatal accidents. Members have a note by the clerk in a spiced briefing. The petitioner did not want to attend today, so may I simply invite the committee to consider what action it wishes to take in its petitions? Members have a note by the clerk suggesting a possible course of action, and I understand that the petitioner is keen for her petition to be referred to in the justice committee. What are the members' views? They're not least sensible. Everybody agree that it should go to the justice committee? The fatal accident inquiry legislation is going through, so I think that Ms O'Halloran is very opportun at her time and it would be inappropriate for us to do anything other than send it to them and ask them to consider it as part of their wider discussion and debate on Lord Cullen's work that's been outstanding for some time. Members agree with that approach. Agenda item 3 is consideration of continued petition. The next item of business is consideration of nine continued petitions. The first petition is PE1098 by Lynn Merrifield on behalf of the King's Seat Community Council on school bus safety. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. Can I invite contributions from members? David, I am in mind to close this petition seen as the Scottish Government has expressed its intention to take the legislation forward in the next Parliament session. Members agree with that point of action. The next petition is PE1105 by Magir McCann on St Margaret's of Scotland Hospice. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Can I welcome Gil Paterson MSP to a meeting who has a constituent interest in the petition? Can I invite contributions from the members? We'd be inappropriate at this juncture, although progress has been made, it's very much welcome. There's still an underlying issue and perhaps in these circumstances it would be appropriate to ask the Government to return to us once the forum that has been established has reached some firmer conclusions and we could then take a more informed decision with the full facts before us. Any other members got anything to say? I'd be keen to hear from the other member who's come along today to hopefully make a contribution in this debate before taking anything further forward on this issue. I'm grateful for that, convener. I was actually hoping that I could hear today that the parties could be agreeing to come together and secure an accountancy firm that can take this forward. Of course there's got to be something that both parties are comfortable with. I really feel that if new eyes look at what's there and find something, I do think that the health board would respond positively. I think that the gap between the two is not that much to be quite frank with you. Sister Rita, who is the chief executive of the hospice has already said that progress has been made prior to the suggestion that both parties come together. I was hoping that I could sit quietly and hear if there had been moves towards that, because I think that that's really the crux of the matter. Someone has got to measure in some way what happens between St Margaret of Scotland hospice and other establishments, and until that happens, I think that there's always going to be a question from my part. I do think that there is a discrepancy. However, I do believe because of the action that the health board, when matters have been taken to the health board and I've been part of that process to be quite frank with you, then they do respond. I do think that if we can have new eyes look at it as I said earlier on and find that there is something there to be addressed, I actually think that it won't be. I think that it's in the health board's interest that that happens, and it's just a matter. I do believe that sitting down, looking at the situation, have some measurement to it and then come to a conclusion. I was hoping that maybe the committee would have some information from the heat today. Unfortunately, I mean, this is not the forum for, I don't believe, and considering the issues that you've just raised there, you know that this is more of a specific issue. I mean, this petition has been on the table now since 2007, and I've heard of work in progress, but I think that this goes beyond work in progress. I think that somewhere down the line, a resolution has to be found, but it would appear to me from the original emphasis of the petition that we've now come down to this specific issue, and it's the thing between the health board and obviously Margaret's Hospice. I think that there's two roles, I think that one, we can continue to keep the petition open, but I think that probably, as a constituent MSP, Mr Paterson, having done it myself, being a constituent MSP, when I think that there's a deadlock somewhere, the first thing I do is try to facilitate a meeting between the relevant partners to see what the real problem is, so I would probably encourage you that that may be something that you may want to take up. I think that the second thing is that, as Kenny MacAskill said, we keep it open, and hopefully there's additional pressure that somebody is looking over their shoulders that we're looking for a resolution, but the part that I'm just emphasising that perhaps you should be doing something to help progress us, because it has been eight years outstanding, and it says we'll move from the original issue to a single issue. I appreciate the point that you made, but, however, at the last meeting of the Petitions Committee, I did write to the health board, and I was hoping that the last thing that I wanted to do was to interfere in that process, and I was hoping that we would get some feedback on in some movement or in that regard. I'm more than happy to engage in that fashion, but I've got to put my cards on the table. I wouldn't engage in that process without the hospice asking me to do so. The last thing that I think that I would be overstepping my authority, you know, this has been going on a long time. Some of the issues have certainly been cleared, there's no question about that. We have made progress, and as I said, I was hoping that just this one stumbling block at this present time is that they're bringing the parties together with someone, the councils that they're from, that both are comfortable with, and then I think after that, we will be at the end game until that happens. I was looking for the benefit from the Petitions Committee, but I would need to go back with your suggestion to the hospice to see if they wanted me to engage in that. Did you get a copy of the health board's response? No, I have nothing from that. You can generally forward that to you. That would be great. I've come here blind today. If I could ask Mr Paterson and declare an interest to somebody who's been involved over the years in support of the St Margaret of Scotland hospice as well. There is a question for the committee, Mr Paterson, as to whether or not the advances that are now being made are facilitated by the petition remaining open, or whether we've reached a point where the original objectives of the petition have been secured and that the detail now under way is not one that is materially affected by the petition still being an open petition or not. I think that in a way the committee is looking, I mean it can't lie, open forever, but I think that the committee is willing to respond to your guidance on the matter at this stage, but I think that we would like to know whether you think that is still a productive thing for the committee to leave the petition open, because it would affect I think the judgment of most of us in coming to a final conclusion this morning. I've always thought that the good work of the committee has been instrumental in many ways of keeping the momentum going. The hospice itself serves much of the members in here's constituents, whether they're of a religious view or not. It's all comers at the hospice to be quite frank with you, but I think that it's a benefit to keep it open. My worry is that at this particular time, and I listened carefully to what the convener said, that at this particular time, if the committee was to close it, it would seem as if it's a done deal, for me it's not a done deal at this stage, but I generally believe, I'm not one to overstate things and I generally believe we're very close to it, and I firmly believe that if it's measured by an independent accountancy firm, chartered accountancy firm, then that's when we'll know exactly where it is. I do feel that something will be found there and that the health board will respond positively, because when things have been brought to their attention they have, and Sister Rita is on record of saying that things have moved on, but there's just a little bit to go. So I would ask the petitioner's committee to keep it open. The commission has already agreed that we're going to keep it open, but can I ask you what influence or what action you have taken with regard to this as the constituency MSP? I come along here, but I also engage all the time with the hospice itself, and I've had I'm guessing here maybe 10 meetings, private meetings with the health board on this matter, but I haven't had any meetings with the health board since the government had brought the two parties together and suggested that an independent person, a company be brought in, because I haven't put anything in the papers, I don't use it for publicity reasons, it's been going on a long time, I've never been involved in the papers, it's not for me that I do this, but I felt that if, since this is where we're at, it would be wrong for me to interfere anyway, it's not my purpose to interfere unless I'm specifically asked by the hospice to do so, or by the health board. So I'm going to take the point that you make, convener, and I'll purposely ask the hospice if they want me to do that very thing, but I think that the solution isn't Gil Paterson, the solution is both parties sitting down agreeing who this accountancy firm, that's where it is at the present time, the agreement is that an accountancy firm would look at this and deliberate on it, and then after that I don't think I can come back here to be quite frank if that happens, we'll get the answer that we're all seeking, inshallah. Thank you chair, my colleague Jackson Carlos, a line of questioning has been very helpful and also the contribution made by the local member. I'm most of the same view that I think we want this to continue to be open, but I think another nudge wouldn't go wrong in terms of trying to get a response, I think we need to encourage people to bring this to a speedy conclusion, and I think that the committee needs to actually write once again to say that we're still waiting for that to happen, and if they could indicate when that's likely to happen. I think that's important. You're quite right to point out what's been going on for quite a long time now, we really need to bring this to an end, and we need particularly the Scottish Government to try and perhaps influence our speedy resolution to this matter. Any further questions? John? It's not a question as such, convener, but it's just a comment. I think that the issue raised by Kenny MacAskill in terms of the hospices forum is a good one. I think that there is work still to be done there in terms of the wider issues that St Margaret's of Scotland hospice raised, but having sat in the committee, I think that the whole of the period this petition has been before us and also having visited St Margaret's of Scotland hospice, I think that there are issues that still need to be resolved. I'm glad that we've got to the stage where we're at, but I think that Gil Paterson is right. We need to keep it open to keep that spotlight on the issue, because I think that if we close the petition then the issues being raised by the hospice might be lost because of the perceived lack of committee interest on the issue, and given that we have been dealing with this for eight years then it would be useful just to try and get some conclusion, but I think that part of the conclusion that I would like to seek is the agreement between the hospice and the health board, possibly along with the Scottish Government to sit down and look at who the accountant would be, because clearly the hospice have raised issues about the appointment of Grant Thornton, but unless the hospice can come up with other suggestions then I think that we need to suggest that we go forward on the basis of that, and hopefully we can get a resolution fairly soon. As I said, I would be loathe at the present moment to close the petition, but I think that as a committee we should write to the Scottish Government, Greater Glasgow Health Board and the hospice to see if we can encourage the three parties to sit down with the Government, mediating in that, to get an appropriate accountant appointed to take the issue raised forward, and we can get some conclusion to this issue that satisfies everybody concerned, particularly the petitioners. Any further questions? Okay, then we agree to keep the petition open and we will take forward the reaction points that have been raised. Agreed? Thank you. The next petition is PE1458 by Peter Cherby on the register of interests for members of the Scottish Judiciary. Members have a note by the clerk and it's admissions. Can I invite contributions from members? Appropriate to hear from Gillian Thomson, the new judicial complaints reviewer. She's a fresh pair of eyes and just asking for her reflections and in her new role may give some insight. Everybody agree with that? Any other questions? I agree with Mr MacAskill. I understand that the Lord President is due to retire and due course and we will wish him well. He will leave knowing that he's managed to protect all the vested interests that he has so assiduously sought to represent in the conduct of this petition. Since we will be hearing from Gillian Thomson, who is new to her position, it may even be that there will be a more enlightened engagement with the Lord President's successor, so I'm all for keeping the show on the road. I, like many, probably recognise that people think that existing safeguards are robust, but are they sufficient? The problem is that the public cannot see that they are robust, even though that may well be the case. I think that inviting Gillian Thomson on to giving evidence would be appropriate, so I would agree with the action agreed. The next two petitions are to be considered together. They are the PE1513 by Ron Park on equal rights for unmarried fathers and PE1528 by John Ronald on child court reform. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. Can I invite contribution from members? On this occasion, convener, we would be sensible for us whatever sympathies we might have had initially to the petitions and the way in which they were raised to move to close the petitions on the basis that there is very clear opposition to the principles that underpin them and there is no prospect of the legislative changes that were being sought, being enacted and with such a decisive position ahead as that, there is little further that the committee can do. I am slightly differently minded in the sense that, whilst I see the way that the petition is put together, I think that the petition itself could have been put together somewhat differently because what I am keen to ensure is the rights of the child rather than the parents. I genuinely feel that the child should have the right to be able to engage with all its parents, whether it is mother or father. Therefore, if one parent decides that there is no going to let access to the other parent, I think that is wrong. I think that denying that child is right to engage with its parents. While I do not want to make an issue of the current petition in front of us, I genuinely believe and feel that if a petition came in front of us, which was focused in a different way, I would be more persuaded to support that because I do believe that the idea about equality is important, but the equality that I am looking at or the equal rights that I am looking at is for the actual child rather than the parent. I think that it is important that every child should have an equal and fair opportunity to engage with both sets of parents. Any other? Jackson Carlaw, I think that we have come to the end of the road here. It is quite clear that the Government is not prepared to legislate, and I have to say that I have great sympathy with them on that. Equally, other organisations have also made their views. There are difficult cases, but the older days that spring to mind listening to Hanzala Marwick are hard cases that make bad laws. Basically, tragedies and difficulties exist, but it seems to me that this is now down to a political battle. There may be, once we come to another political term, a further court reform or family law act, that there are no plans or proposals before us for amendments to family law, and it is something that may reoccur post 2016, although I do not necessarily think that it is likely, but at the present moment there is nothing that we can do. We have exhausted all channels, and it is at the end of the road. Any other? Does the committee then agree to close both petitions? Great. Great. Thank you. The next petition is PE1517 by Eileen Holmes and Olive McElroy on behalf of the Scottish Mesh survivors here at our voice campaign on mesh and medical devices. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I welcome Neil Findlay MSP to the meeting, who has an interest in the petition, and I now invite contributions from members. This is an interim and an update in relation to the petition, which all of us regard as being of very considerable importance. I know that we have a series of actions recommended by the clerks, which follow on from the direction that we have previously agreed. I am happy to accept those action points that have been identified. We are invited to note the revised times table for publication of the independent reviews report, and we agree that the evidence session with the cabinet secretary, Dr Wilkin, the European Commission, will be scheduled after the report has been published. I think that that is consistent with the view that we took previously. Also, the committee writes to the European Commission's scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks to make it aware of our interest in all of this, and we are requesting an update on when the report on polypropylene transvaginal mesh devices will be published. In addition, as the committee has not yet sought the views of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists or the British Society, I am not even going to attempt that. Members may wish to consider seeking submissions from the committee. I think that that seems perfectly sensible. The committee is very much at the forefront of taking those issues forward. I think that it is interesting beyond this committee the extent to which public awareness is continuing to grow across Scotland and further afield. The interest that there is in the work that this committee has been able to progress in relation to all of this and also our determination throughout not to lose sight of the considerable human consequence to which we have borne witness as members of the committee in this Parliament. I think that that is the course of action that we should continue to follow. I am merely observing the committee this morning, convener, and I am very supportive of the proposals that have been put forward. I think that Mr Carlaw is absolutely right that the medical world is upon this committee in relation to the petition and all that falls from it. I would certainly be supportive of the proposals that have been put forward, and as I say, many people are watching very closely what is happening. I cannot now say that there is a society of euro guy in ecology. My eyes just weren't looking at the paperwork at the right moment. Support of the suggestions that the members of Jackson Carlaw on the actions of the committee could strengthen that slightly. I know that the cabinet secretary has written to the European Commission to find out what the new timetable would be for the report, but I would suggest that we, as a committee, also ask when we are writing to the European Commission Scientific Committee to stress the timetable issue because we are keen to examine it. I could also suggest when we are writing that we refer them to the evidence that we have heard as a committee, because I know that having been on other committees that have visited the European Commission, the commission is very interested in some of the debates and discussions that are taking place in this Parliament and are keen to hear some of the evidence that the committees are taking so that they can add that to their knowledge of debate that is taking place, particularly in the Scottish Parliament. I am keen that, in terms of the review on the report, it takes on board the concerns and issues raised by patients who have identified problems. While we heard the earlier evidence from Adam Slater, it would be incumbent upon us to refer some of the evidence that we have heard from the patients and refer them on to the articles or the website that has been developed and take account of some of the issues and experiences that have been relayed by the patients and their concerns. It would be useful if we added that into our correspondence with the European Commission Scientific Committee to ensure that they are getting the whole picture of the debate that is taking place in this committee and the debate that is taking place in Scotland. When Mr Slater gave his evidence, he agreed to forward us a whole number of pieces of documentation that he had. I certainly have not received that yet. I do not know if that has been received by the committee clerks or if it is not, but if that is possible, could that be followed up? That is very important. I will follow that up to Ray Neal, and I remember quite clearly that that has been mentioned. The interest in this petition has more or less been worldwide. I think that the number of mesh implants has reduced considerably since it was first raised here. I am really disappointed that the independent review has certainly not been completed yet, and I think that taking on board the points that John and others have made, we go forward with action points. We write and say how disappointed we are, because there are a number of women out there who are going through a worrying time as it is, and any further delays and the independent review coming is certainly not going to be helpful. Do we again remember that we go forward with action points? The European External Relations Committee also took evidence on this issue, and there may be more information available through the committee clerks from that committee as well. That might be helpful. We agree the action points to go forward, and I thank Mr Pernod for attending me. The next petition is PE1539 by Anne Booth on Housing Associations to come under the Freedom of Information Act 2002. Members have noted the clerk and the submissions, and I invite contribution from members. My colleagues as a firm believer in transparency, freedom of information, and I am sympathetic towards the aims of this petition. I note that the inclusion of RSLs within the scope of the legislation has been looked at several times, broadly supported but never sanctioned, so I would therefore begin to repair this petition to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, and perhaps in doing so we could draw the attention to the willingness of the Information Commissioner to give evidence on this matter. Angus? I agree, convener, that the assembly goes to close the petition. At this stage, I believe that there is merit in what the petition is calling for, therefore referral to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee is the preferred option. I agree. Members agree? The next petition is PE1542 by Everyn Mendeil on behalf of Ben Mendeil and Markham and Caroline Smith on human rights for dairy farmers. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions, and I welcome Jimmy McGregor, MSP and Dev Stewart to this meeting, and I invite contribution from members. Thank you, convener, for allowing me to make a short statement in support of my constituents on this very long-running issue. I also raised this ring-fence issue in the recent dairy debate in Parliament, hoping that it might be dealt with by the Cabinet Secretary, but he did not, in fact, mention it at all in his closing speech. In that debate, other members did correctly confirm that producers in this area were caught in the monopoly position. It is now five years since I first spoke to the Public Petitions Committee, and my view has not changed. It was unfair and disproportionate to expect constituents like Mr and Mrs Mendeil and other dairy farmers in Kintar to forfeit their property and ruin their businesses in the name of supporting the wider community. Many of these businesses have been built up over generations. That is the nature of farming. The Scottish Government should now accept that it was a human rights issue and that most of those it consulted would have no knowledge of human rights legislation. Individual dairy farmers themselves were not consulted. I believe that this petition should be continued and further questions are asked of the Scottish Government so that the genuine concerns of Mr and Mrs Mendeil and others can be addressed. If you will allow me, I would like to read out a short statement from my constituents who have travelled all the way to be here and are sitting in the audience. We simply cannot understand why Government is not being asked to correct the factually incorrect statements that they previously made to the Public Petitions Committee. We believe from the 12 documents that we submitted to the Public Petitions Committee that we have demonstrated that individual dairy farmers were not dealt with fairly regarding the Southern Isles Milk Quater doing fence. Consultations were not done correctly. Government knew for years that the milk price was below the cost of production. This is a scandal on a par with the misselling of payment protection insurance, except that for the individual victims concerned the consequences were much more devastating. It is now 15 years since we first sought justice and almost six years since we submitted the first petition. This is completely the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and we feel it is totally unfair to expect widows and pensioners, as most affected now are, to take Government to court to elicit justice. If the Public Petitions Committee and Government cannot find a solution then we think that there should be a public inquiry. That is the end of my statement. David Begau. David Begau, convener. I thank the committee for allowing me to come along with Jimmie MacGower to make a few points in which to add to the case. I have also been dealing with Mr Mrs Medell for three or four years. Before that, Peter Peacock, my former colleague, was heavily involved with the case. As Jimmie MacGower said, it is a very complicated case, and I know that members would have read very carefully all the background papers. It is, of course, to do with ring fencing of milk quotas, but there is a much wider issue. I think that the fundamental issue here is about human rights and how you access human rights. SPICE is very helpful in providing me with a specific paper that I have passed to Mr Mrs Medell, who is in the gallery today, about issues around legal aid and how you access that. I appreciate that, in order to access human rights within Scots law, you need to go through the various stages and levels of Scots law. I will not delay the committee to talk about the difficulties in getting legal aid, but I will say a couple of points on that. The family has been in touch with over 50 lawyers, either in person or by phone. The vast majority will not touch human rights cases, and for those who have done it, they tell me that they would be doing the deal with prisoners or those who have got an immigration issue around human rights. I will give you one example. For one of the lawyers who agreed to take the case, they wanted £25,000 up front, so there is a wider issue on that. In terms of what action could the committee now do, I obviously appreciate with my formal role how important it is that petitions are moved on and that you do not want to get logged on with a whole series of petitions that are there year after year. I have, as you would expect, a very specific bit of information that I would like to put to you. That is that I would suggest that we do a very, very brief or the committee rather, just a very, very brief mini inquiry that looks at the circumstances of the formal ring feds area, because it no longer exists anywhere, obviously, with moat quotas ending, in the southern aisles, looking at the social and economic circumstances of the farmers in that area. In that case, it is not just about Mr and Mrs Midell, but that it faces lots of other farmers who, frankly, have found that their livelihood has been effectively killed off by this. That is a breach of European human rights, and I think that a very, very straightforward, discreet inquiry looking into the effects of farmers in the southern aisles area would be very, very beneficial. I know from the previous experience the fearless way that the Petitions Committee took on the judiciary over the RHSR of interests and, secondly, the great work that the committee has done on social issues over child sexual exploitation. I think that there will be another piece in the armory of saying what an excellent piece of work the Petitions Committee has done. I think that that will be very, very helpful. It is not just about one family, much as they are in a terribly tragic position. I think that there has been a major miscarriage of justice, I think that such a tragedy has happened, not just to Mr and Mrs Midell, but literally scores of other families who have seen their livelihood ruined because of what has happened in the ring ffencing of moat quotas. I believe that that is a complete overreaction to the current situation from Mr Stewart. I think that the salient point in this case is that the EU milk quota regime was abolished this year on 1 April. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Scottish Government would be willing to look at this retrospectively, particularly given the Scottish Government's stance to date. However, the cabinet secretary has launched the Scottish dairy plan and acknowledged the challenges facing the islands and remote areas, including clearly the area of Cintaya. The Scottish Government has advised that it does not accept the premise of the petition that Mr and Mrs Midell's human rights were breached. Given that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has advised the committee that this is an issue that only a court could rule on, I think that that should be taken on board. Of course, taken on board the fact that the petitioners have approached a number of lawyers to date. Now, I know that the petitioners feel very passionately that they have been let down particularly their disappointment that they were not consulted as part of the independent review to ring ffencing provision in 2011. So, by all means, it certainly might be worth highlighting their disappointment to the Scottish Government. However, in doing so, I would be minded to, given what I have already stated, I would be minded to close the petition given that the Scottish Government does not accept the charge that the petitioners' rights were breached, but to place on record and acknowledge the clear frustration that the petitioners have gone through in the past few years. If that is not acceptable to the committee, then the other option would be given that the Rural Affairs Committee is actively monitoring the current dairy crisis. It might be a possibility to refer the petition to the Rural Affairs Climate Change Environment Committee. However, I feel that a many inquiry by this committee would not address the fundamental issues that it would seek to do. Injala. Thank you, convener. It is always a shame when citizens have to fight against a brick wall of the Government to get justice. I think that is an awful shame. When we put our citizens in a position where they financially cannot stand up to a Government, that is even worse because the Government is here to serve the people and to serve them fairly. I am of the opinion that I know that this has been going for a period of time. I feel that there is a case to be answered for. Just because the petitioners are not financially able to, it does not mean that they should be denied justice. I think that that is an awful sin. I would suggest, convener, that if at all possible, if we did carry out a many inquiry that could possibly help both parties out, that would be helpful. I do not want to pass the back-on. This is a situation where we really need to ensure that we do the very best for our citizens when they come to us for help. Clearly, they have come to us for help. We need to go that extra mile, if need be, to ensure that they get as close to justice as possible. Therefore, I genuinely believe that we should be doing more for this particular family and others who have suffered in that circumstance. Clearly, we listened to Mr Mundell. We appreciate the difficulties here, but I have to say that I am with Anguson who would be deeply concerned about our many inquiry. It appears to me that this is a deeply complex issue. We have understood, both from Jamie McGregor and David Stewart, to have made the points, the complexities that arise, the difficulties that are even getting lawyers to understand this, the view that the Human Rights Commission has taken in terms of passing it elsewhere. It seems to me that, A, the likelihood of us being able to write up a terms of reference for a many inquiry would be extremely difficult. I think that the complexity of it would make it challenging. I have a background in law, but it would be very challenged by this, never mind having little knowledge, if any, on rural affairs and agriculture and the specifics relating to milk. I think that the challenges for the committee in carrying out an inquiry would be significant. It really is a situation where, while I have the greatest of sympathy for people who clearly have suffered, it really is for others to pursue through other channels that we have, as in others, come to the end of the road. It strikes me that what Mr MacDonald is asking us to do is to hang Mr and Mrs Mendele out to dry and all those others who similarly suffered. Their recourse that would appear is the law. We understand that the law, or at least human rights lawyers, is not interested in pursuing the matter. In so far as anybody has even been identified, we might have been entertained the idea not at a cost that anybody would judge reasonable. Yes, the issues are complex. I cannot believe that they are any more complex than the inquiry that we held into child sex exploitation, however, which seemed to me to be as complex as any. I do not know whether Mr MacAskill is right. He may well be, but I am reluctant not to at least allow Parliament to demonstrate its ability to be fearless in the pursuit of what is, after all, the convenience of the Scottish Government's opinion of its own conduct as being a reason why this petition should be closed. I do not think that, simply in the face of that opinion, a committee of the Scottish Parliament should surrender any further investigation of the matter. Therefore, I would be interested in seeking to establish whether the proposal that Mr Stewart has made is one that is feasible. If so, I think that it is a matter in which Parliament should be prepared to act and consider further. John Mason? Mr Stewart's suggestion of a mini-inquiry is well versed in the workings of this committee, which is the former convener. The difficulty that I have in terms of a mini-inquiry being conducted by this committee is that when we took on the child sexual exploitation inquiry, that was over a period of time, and we went into that in some detail. It is the definition of what a mini-inquiry would be. Angus MacDonald made the first suggestion that he did not think that it could go any further. His initial assessment was that we would close the petition. However, he indicated, as per the recommendations in the committee papers, that we would possibly refer the petition on to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. I would be keen—I do not want to close the petition, but I would be keen if we transferred or put it over to the Racky Committee to deal with the issue, because it is dealing with and had a debate recently in Parliament on the dairy quota issues. That petition is part of that wider debate and has to be seen in the context of that wider debate. If an appropriate committee, given that the Rural Affairs Committee is already carrying out that work, would be appropriate for us as a committee to refer the petition over to the Rural Affairs Committee for consideration as part of their wider investigation to note quotas issue. That way, hopefully, that committee can take on the wider issues in terms of an inquiry, with the knowledge and experience that that committee has in terms of the Rural Affairs Committee. I am quite happy to support John Ange's recommendations that it has put to the Rural Affairs Committee. Initially, I had given thought that we might invite the minister back, but I think that there could very well be an opportunity. I think that with regard to my inquiry, that might lie more with the Rural Affairs Committee, and I would tend to support if that were referred to the Rural Affairs Committee for consideration. Is there any other points that we might want to raise, or are we quite happy with that action that has been proposed? I agree to formally oppose that, convener. As I understand it, there is no investigation by the Rural Affairs Committee at the moment, and this is simply to consider the petition or the context of any future work that it may undertake in the dairy industry. I do not think that that advances the petition or the petitioner's difficulties in any way at all, so I am usually on this occasion, if that is the recommendation, I will wish to formally oppose it. Before we move to either forward or against, the clarity from myself that it is a favour to refer to the Rural Affairs Committee would be on the, could we also maybe add to that, that there has been a call for a mini inquiry into us. Does that make any difference? It would make a difference for me if you were assuring me that either ourselves or they would carry that out. However, if you are not in that position, then it would not make any difference to me. I am looking at citizens coming to us for support and help. We have to find a way of doing that if we can. What we cannot do is allow the Government to rough shot over citizens who cannot afford to stand up to them. We just cannot do that. We live in a democracy for God's sake. We are supposed to be looking after our people, and we should shy away from that. On giving an assurance, I do not think that I am in that position to give any assurance, but there has been John Wilson when you want to come in. I was going to say that, given Jackson Carlaw's comments about the uncertainty that the Rural Affairs Committee is going to conduct any further work on the dairy quotas issue, rather than referring the petition on, because once we refer a petition on, it then goes out of our hands and goes over to that committee. I am not sure how the suggestion will be taken, convener, but I suggest that we ask the clerks to speak to the Rural Affairs Committee clerks to find out if there is anything in the work programme of the Rural Affairs Committee that could cover the petition being raised, and if not, then we reconsider to the committee how we take the petition forward. I am comfortable with an approach through clerks directly without taking John Wilson's point of formally referring it. Equally, if the Rural Affairs Committee were not to be considering a mini inquiry, I think that I would want to know why, because I think that they are better placed with greater expertise than we are. It might be rather than to take a decision to close the petition or to formally refer it, we could informally request to the Rural Affairs Committee as to whether they are prepared to carry out a mini inquiry, what their views are and if not, why not. I might be in a better position to take a judgment as to where I might feel competent or capable of going. Can we then agree that I will write formally to the Rural Affairs Committee with the points that have been raised in regard to the thing that we then will wait? I will write formally to the convener and we will see what the response is and then we can move on, please. Thank you. I just put my thanks to the committee for listening to Jimmy McGurr and myself and for the understanding that the committee members have had on this particular issue. We agree on the action that has been agreed. Thank you very much, young colleagues. The final continued petition is PE152 by Peter Campbell on the choice of treatment for cancer patients. Members have a note by the clerk and its submissions. Can I now invite contributions from members? We can take it any further. We have highlighted the case. It might be that we can provide some signposting petitioner, but it seems to me that it is quite a complex position. It takes a view that is not orthodox, if I could put it that way. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but given the bureaucracy that we need to have for medical treatment, it seems to me that there is little further that we can take other than provide some information to Mr McGurr. He may be capable of taking it further. The committee will now go into private session for item 4 on today's agenda.