 Fy raeddan i gyd o gondol, wrth gwrs yn cymeledd i eich gynhyrchu cymledd ar y Cymru yn 2018. We have one item on our agenda today, which is consideration of a number of continued petitions. The first petition is petition 1603 by Mary Campbell Jack and Douglas Beattie on behalf of Quakers in Scotland and Forces Watch. Members will recall that the committee published its report earlier in the year and the Scottish Government responded to the report primer y handed plante niad, dylech, F farming planter ond diddydd yn tynnau ddechrau i lee squadg iawn. Yn committee o g kiliaf o fewn eisiau yn ei atebol o gynnwys eu cassofiw hwn cymheithio nôr yn bach yn nôr gymaen iawn, yn企 y mae昙wchef yn credu指 soci author o odgyrch diwedd. Goronido chi am yr NCTจyll evaluatedd yn y rhes-g stakeholder wrth hyn yn ei gweith negredig,間den am hŵr dych yn cy lecturer wedi gynradd o ddwy dda wneud hynny o ffrind ei cwrsfodaw. ers linkslog wedi darw eureu Arian, gyda'r ddigon o'r prinsipol y gallu cyfleidol o'r cyfleidol ar y cyfleidol rymd i'r ysgol yn cofio ar gyfer y gyfleidol, yn dod os y llefodol yn fwy o'ch cyfleidol i'r cyfleidol i'r cyfleidol ar gyfer y cyfleidol. Arian, gyda'r cyfleidol, yn cofio ar gyfleidol i'r cyfleidol i'r cyfleidol i'r cyfleidol teimlo eich ddysgu o'r ffordd o'i dweud i gael eich hunain i gyda'r ysgrifennu. Gwyddon ym Mhwylodau i ddysgu i'ch ganddururau oedd yn ddigonwyd Sgolwgol, yn ddweud i gael eich ganddururau oedd? Nog, yn ddegonwyd, mae gennym ni'n ddigonwyd i gael eu bwysigol a'ch gweithio'r ffordd o'i ddysgu i'ch ganddururau i'ch gweithio'i ddysgu i ddysgu i'ch ganddururau. The next petition for consideration is petition 1616 on parking legislation by John S Shaw. At our last consideration of this petition in March, we agreed to defer consideration till the findings of the improving parking in the Scotland consultation were published. The consultation is now concluded, which informed the Transport Scotland Bill introduced to this panel in June. Members may wish to note that chapter 4 of the bill is focused on pavement and double parking. However, it is unclear from the bill whether it will be anffenced to park in front of a dropped curb. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, as the lead committee for the bill, is considering stage 1 of the legislation. It held an evidence session on parking aspects of the bill at its meeting yesterday and intends to hold an evidence session with the Cabinet session for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, later this month. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I had a constituency issue about people parking in front of a dropped curb driveway. It seems that the law states that it is illegal if something is parked in the driveway at the time, but if it is not, you can park in front of a dropped curb. That is the information that I am getting back, which surprised me somewhat. I think that it would be right to the Scottish Government to just update us on the progress that it is making. I know that we are working with the law society on this. I think that it would be helpful perhaps to hear back from them there. I think that we have had issues locally about people parking across people's driveways. I have been told that that is not a defence because it is a public highway. There are lots of contentious issues around that, but the idea of a dropped pavement or indeed parking on pavements is really about for people who have mobility issues, people who have visual impairments or wheelchair or a pram. I wonder whether it would be as effective to ask the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, because it is taking the context of a bill that could then be improved. If we send a petition to them, we think that this is a question that should be addressed during the progress of the bill. I would imagine that it must be something that would be within the remit of any member to put down amendments to the bill, but it would be angus. Let us know about that. I am not on that committee. Are you not? No, share the one. All right, okay. The other one with a long title. How are they holding an evidence session and looking at those parts of the bill? We could ask them to look at this petition in particular. It is not simply that they have an evidence session. We would want to underline the fact that they are dealing with a bill that would sit within the remit of that bill. The bill itself is actually looking at parking and so on, so we could perhaps emphasise to the committee that we believe that there is an issue here, that the petition is highlighted, and we do think that it should be something that should be actively considered as the bill itself has progressed. If that is agreed, we would be closing the petition, but referring it to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and emphasising to them that we believe that this should be seen in the context of the bill itself, which is addressing issues about parking. Is that agreed? Okay, thank you for that. If we can then move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1631 by Maureen McVey on child welfare hearings. As members will recall, at our last consideration of this petition, the committee noted that the Lord President had the power to determine that family cases be heard by specialist family sheriffs. We therefore agreed to write to the Lord President to establish whether the criterion exists to determine when and in what child contact cases that happens. The Lord President's response is included in our meetings papers. We also agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek its views in relation to suggestions made by the Scottish Child Law Centre to use child welfare hearing decision notes to record discussions at child welfare hearings. The Government's response references two public consultations that it considers relevant to the issues raised in the petition. The first was the Scottish Civil Justice Council consultation on the case management of family and civil partnership actions in the share of court and a Scottish Government consultation on our review of the Children's Scotland Act 1995 and on a proposed family justice modernisation strategy. Those consultations have now concluded. The Government's submission on to state that intends to quote, to see what consultations say in relation to child welfare hearings and then consider policy in this area in the light of these comments. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. Rachel? The petitioner actually agrees with the recommendation by the Scottish Child Law Centre about using the child welfare hearing decision notes. I think that she believes that that would strike an appropriate note or perhaps we should write to the Scottish Government to specifically about that, but also to get an update on the action that it intends to take. I mean, I was struck by the petitioner. It doesn't make the point that she has responded to the two consultations, so I suppose it's a question for her of whether the consultation results in them then taking the action that she seeks. I mean, it does feel to me that I think that what was quite struck by in the petitioner's comments is the gap between what perhaps the Lord President imagines a system to be like and where it's not working like that, there's a problem. So if you've got different sheriffs and having to rehearse, not necessarily get the full story because there's not a full record of what was discussed, but you can see the challenge of having a full note and so on, so I think she seems to think there's a balance there. Perhaps we should ask the Scottish Government what its response to that would be. Is that agreed? We would be writing to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the action that it intends to take, relevant to the petition in response to the outcome of the public consultation that is run by the Scottish Government, and the Scottish Civil Justice Council and perhaps to highlight that the petitioner supports the proposal identified by the Scottish Child Law Centre. The next continued petition for consideration is petition 1672 by Hugh Paterson on the Scottish Law Commission report and prescription. At our last consideration of this petition in May, we wrote to the Scottish Government to ask whether it would consider introducing an awareness-raising scheme to inform title deed holders that if they are holding defective property title deeds and that this information has not come to light until 20 years after convening, is the client and not the solicitor insurer that is liable for any costs. The Government's response states that it could not justify spending public money on a specific awareness-raising scheme on the 20-year prescriptive period and property transactions. It intends, however, to update the buying of home, the legal process section of its website to inform property owners about prescriptive periods. It is also working with the Law Society for Scotland to update society's information on buying and selling a property with regard to the law of prescription. The committee also wrote to registers of Scotland to ask whether its current IT system was set up in such a way that an automatic letter could be sent to the owner of a property 12 to 18 months before the 20-year cut-off period came into effect to notify them that there would be no right to redress it after this period. Registers of Scotland's response states that its current IT system does not allow them to identify titles that have not changed hands for, say, 19 years, as there has never been any need to do so. The response goes on to say that at significant cost it would be possible to modify its systems. The submission also states that, while understanding the issue raised by the petition, it is extremely rare for people to have defects in their title deeds. The petitioner remains of the view that registers of Scotland should be writing to all proprietors who have owned their titles for 19 years, drawing attention to the law of prescription. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I was certainly struck by the comments from registers of Scotland that, in writing to people, they might create concern, which means that they have to go and get advice that will cost money only to be identified that there is not a problem. I suppose that my sense was that that did not feel proportionate to clearly what has been for a problem for an individual, but I wonder if people have a view on what they might do. I will make another comment on that as well. It strikes me that the IT system is not going to be able to identify those people in order to write. If I am looking at the evidence correctly, there seems to be a lack of information that would then be able to be used in order to do that. Obviously, the petitioner is very well intended in what he is set out to do, but there seems to be quite a lot of barriers in order to do that. However, there is one light at the end of the tunnel, which is to ask the Scottish Government about the online guidance, the update with regard to the information on buying and selling properties, and that it could provide. I think that the issue about the IT system—you can do anything with an IT system, but if you are going to write to every single person whose property is coming up to a 20-year date, that is quite a compelling argument. What do people then do when they get that letter? Do they then go and take legal advice if their title deeds are okay or not? If you are able, at the early stage, when you are buying a property and you are aware of that because it is on the guidance that you said to your solicitor at that point, I am not reassured that you have checked it. I do not know. I am never quite sure if somebody is really living a property for more than the statutory 20 years, and further down the line that that becomes an issue. I suppose the question is whether there is anything that can be done that is proportionate to the risk and is a bit of a private transaction. The context for the legal process is to make sure that it is as fair as possible. I was quite reassured, I must say, by what the Scottish Government has indicated and the Law Society is working together on guidance. I would hope that that would develop. I agree with you, convener, that the time to do something about it is at the purchase. I think that matters could be raised more appropriate to raise it then than at the 20-year mark. Yes, people should be informed and be thinking about that. The question is whether, even with all of that, there is a mistake and do not sport it till 20 years on. There is a balance of judgment to be made in terms of that. There is a proposal to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update that has been suggested by HL. Would people be agreeable to that? Is there anything else that we should be doing? It is unusual that that happens, but I have had a couple of constituency cases about problems with title deeds that people have not identified by the time they get to selling the property. It is important as a responsibility that lies with the legal profession. We are agreeing to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the progress made in updating its online guidance and its work with the Law Society of Scotland to update information on buying and selling a property. If we can then move on to the next petition. The next petition for consideration is petition 1685 by Jim Nisbit on log burner stoves in smoke control areas. The clerk's note refers to the two recommendations in the environment, climate change and land reform committees report—that is your committee, excellent—on air quality in Scotland. Those recommendations were to undertake more research to understand the extent of pollutants emanating from wood burner stoves and to review the current regulations and guidance on wood burner stoves to ensure that the regulations are sufficiently robust. The cabinet secretary accepted those recommendations and confirmed that those issues are under active consideration jointly with other UK administrations. Steps taken include an investigation of the general public's use of wood burner stoves, which the cabinet secretary stated, would quote, provide a sound evidence base for reviewing current policy and legislation and any other research requirements. As yet, it does not appear that any findings from the investigation have been published. The petitioner has expressed his disappointment with the clear air for Scotland strategy and argues that it has already been significant research undertaken on this issue. No wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. The clerk's note has suggested closing the petition as the Government is actively taking forward the recommendations of the ECCLR committee. I wonder if maybe Angus you want to comment first. Okay, thanks. The ECCLR committee's report on air quality in Scotland did note at the time last February the concerns that had been expressed about the potential impact on air quality in Scotland of wood burner stoves. As you have already mentioned, the cabinet secretary has already recognised that the Clean Air Act of 1993 might need to be updated. However, there are new EU standards coming in 2020, which presumably will be signed up to, which will effectively force consumers to purchase what they are calling eco design ready stoves. There is quite a bit of movement in that area already, but there was a development yesterday when the cabinet secretary for environment announced an independent review of Clean Air for Scotland, which is to be chaired by Professor Campbell Gemell, which was a programme for a Government commitment. I am just wondering if it might be worth us making Professor Gemell or at least the steering group aware of the petition so that it could perhaps be considered, while they consider the content of the review of the Clean Air for Scotland review. Given that there has been quite a bit of movement on that already, the petitioner has made his point that it is definitely on the Government's radar, but we need to make sure that it is on the radar of the review of Clean Air for Scotland. By writing to Professor Campbell Gemell, we would do that. Are there any other views, or is that agreed? On that basis, we are agreeing to close the petition or understanding order rules 15.7. The basis of the Scottish Government is acting on the ECCLR committee's recommendations, but we are also agreeing to write to Professor Campbell Gemell, who is obviously going to be conducting the work that you have identified. We think that the issues in there are important, and we do note that there has been movement in progress, and we want to thank the petitioner for petitioning the committee in highlighting those issues. If we can now move on then to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1690 by Emma Shorter on behalf of ME Action in Scotland, on the treatment of people with ME in Scotland. Members will recall that we previously took evidence in this petition from the petitioner and agreed to write to a range of stakeholders, including the Scottish Government and health boards. The clerks note provides a summary of the submissions received from health boards, which appear to justify the concerns expressed by the petitioner, inner petition and, in their previous oral evidence, about an inconsistency of approach or awareness across health boards. We also have received submissions from individuals outlining their experiences, in particular with regard to cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy. Those appear to be supported by stakeholders, including science for ME and action for ME. In response, NHS education for Scotland refers to a learning matrix that is produced, which considers cognitive behavioural therapy, quotes as the clearest evidence of benefit. The Scottish Government acknowledges that CBT can result in some people feeling worse, but it notes that studies have found that it does have benefits for others. On our tables, we also have copies of written submissions that were not included within our meetings pack, as they are in the process of being published. Invest in ME research sets out the position why it believes that greater funding is required for biomedical research into ME. It also considers that the delivery of training and education requires to be overseen by experienced clinicians and suggests that claims of the efficacy of CBT are misleading. Stuart Brown sees clarification on the Scottish Government's submission, particularly with regard to actual government spend, within £90,000, of funding that was recently announced for research in this area. He also raises concerns about the Scottish Government's reference to the £2.5 million, the invest in specialist nursing and care, and argues that this money was not spent on ME, nor did the Government particularly intend it to be. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I think that I am quite struck by, again, the number of responses and powerful arguments that are being put forward. I was also found at the evidence from the Professor, if I remember his name. Professor Jonathan Edwards, I thought that his argument about why I do not pretend to understand these and we are not clinicians. We are always anxious about intervening in what clinical matters are with people who have got expertise, but his explanation of why he would build in bias around the behavioural issues that I thought were really very interesting and the pattern of experience by those who have given submissions that I thought were also significant. As you know, in this place, every day is a school day, and there was a debate on ME within the Parliament, which I took part in. I am not sure who else was involved in that, but I was struck at that time. To be honest, I was not well versed in it. The number of submissions that we received prior to that debate was significantly higher than most. It certainly brought it much more to my attention than it is an issue that I think that needs to be looked at further. I was also struck by, in those submissions, the difference of approach across different health boards. Again, that whole post-cord lottery of the way in which health boards approach this. I think that it is something that we should look at. I would be quite interested to hear from the Cabinet Secretary on this. I think that that is probably the next logical step that we should take here. In terms of the Cabinet Secretary coming, we could talk about the range of experience that we have been identified, the different practice by different health boards, but also what seems to be a contradiction in terms of the clinical arguments that some people are familiar with. It is not very good for some people, but it is good for others. I think that the Professor makes a point that the way in which it is assessed builds in some of that, which is problematic. I think that you have hit the nail on the head there because I was very gladdened to see that my own NHS board had made a submission. I was quite disappointed, to be quite honest, that only a handful of NHS boards had responded to this. What was evident and which you have just highlighted is that there is such a different approach from boards, and they look at things differently. My own health board, for example, looks at CBT and graded exercise therapy as evidence-based and follows the Scottish Government guidelines. That was not noted in some of the other NHS boards, but, as we know, the petitioner has not responded to the submissions so far. It says that the petitioner has yet to respond to the submissions. Is that correct? That is another petitioner. There is quite a detailed response. Oh, is there? One of the other things in the evidence that struck me, and I suppose that I would need to get some clarification, is this table where they have identified the recommendations to government? There is just not implemented, not implemented, not known, not implemented all the way through. That conversation is easier, probably, directly with the cabinet secretary rather than in dialogue, but there are quite detailed comments on the other submissions. Angus? Thank you, convener. You and Rachel Hamilton have raised the issue of different approaches by health boards, and it is clear from the submissions that we have received from the health boards that the approach to training and awareness varies quite a bit. There is also a mixed approach to CBT and GET, and there is a mixed approach to provision of treatment and support. For example, NHS Llorian has its ME-CFS rehabilitation service at the Astley Ainsley hospital, whereas NHS Sturford and Galloway state that the thrust of their service provision is community-based. It is mixed out there, and it would be good to maybe get the views of the other health boards that have not responded. I would have thought on an issue such as this that would all have been keen to submit their views. Just on NHS Dumfries and Galloway issue, I know that my colleague Emma Harper, MSP for the South of Scotland region, has been very active in addressing issues related to me in her area. She has contacted NHS Dumfries and Galloway and GPs and other local services and health professionals, as well as attending events in Dumfries. Emma Harper cannot attend today's meeting, but she is aware that the petition is on the agenda today. I know that she is working towards better health board engagement and proper evidence for best treatment and support options. In the briefing that we received, I was quite concerned to note that a survey conducted by Action for ME of GPs found that 82 per cent of those surveyed had not undertaken any training on ME whatsoever. What I would class as a staggering 66 per cent were not aware of the good practice statement. I think that we need to get the cabinet secretary in to get her view on the provision of services to ME sufferers, particularly as the convener pointed out. A number of recommendations have not been picked up. I remember when people first started talking about ME as a younger woman. There was, at that time, a scepticism, and that comes out quite strongly from the evidence that people are basically told, well, not quite your imagination, but you have to deal with it psychologically, as opposed to recognising that some of the clinicians here are now identifying that this is a condition that biomedical research is talking about. Again, I tend to be an expert, but I am quite struck by that. That is a thread in it, and that seems to create—that comes out, I think, from some of the evidence. To ask the cabinet secretary, are health board responses informed or the provision informed by that thinking still, and to what extent does the Scottish Government recognise that that is a problem? Would it be appropriate to ask the NHS boards that did not submit, as Angus has suggested, again, prior to seeing the cabinet secretary? We should also invite the cabinet secretary and, in doing so, send out a note again to the health board saying that we are going to be having a session with the cabinet secretary, be helpful to get a fuller picture of what is happening across the country. It may be that it is something in some health board areas that is simply not given any priority, but that is a story in itself, or an issue in itself that we would need to address. With your agreement, we plan then to invite the cabinet secretary of health and sports to give evidence of future meeting and to contact the health boards that have not submitted in order to have an opportunity to do so, but ahead of that meeting, and we would also want to record a thanks to those health boards that actually did provide a response. If that is agreed, we can move on to the next petition, which is petition 1691 by Christopher Hampton on behalf of the steering group of Bowman's view and calls for review of the Title Conditions Scotland Act 2003. The committee previously sought views from the Scottish Government, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Law Commission. The clerk's note summarises the responses received and notes that the Scottish Government has no current plans to consult on changing the law in this area. For our further consideration, it might be helpful to have a response from the petitioner to get his views and submissions received to date, and that is the one that we have not received thus far, Rachel. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions. Do you say, convener, that we should be inviting the petitioner to respond? Until that time, I think that what we do with this petition would be put on hold. We are interested in the issues around here and we recognise that they are complex, and it might just simply be helpful to get the view of the petitioner in terms of what we might do next. Clearly, it would seem from the Scottish Government's point of view that it is not their intention to do as the petitioner requests, but I think that that would be helpful to give the petitioner that opportunity. Is that agreed? In that case, if we could move on then to petition 1692, which was submitted by Lesley Scott and Alison Proust on behalf of Times Trust and Scottish Homes Education Forum. At our first consideration of this petition, we took evidence from the petitioners and agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Information Commissioners Office. The Information Commissioners Office offers no comment on the call for an inquiry, but sets out its role and views on the data protection aspect of the action called for in the petition. The Scottish Government does not agree with the petitioners' call for an independent inquiry. The petitioners argue that by stating that it is a matter for local authorities as to how they deliver the GERFEC policy and framework, the Scottish Government is abdicating its responsibility. The committee members may be aware that there is a significant interest in the petition among some individuals who may have contacted us directly. Members may also wish to note that the clerks have received correspondence from individuals other than the petitioners explaining their concerns about information sharing aspect. As members are aware, submissions can only be published as and when they meet the Parliament's criteria to do so. For example, they should not refer to on-going cases or disputes. I am aware that the clerks have also been reviewing submissions that have been received recently, and those will be published in due course. As far as our consideration of the petition is concerned, members have before them a copy of correspondence from the petitioners expressing their concern that some submissions are not being published. The petitioners have offered some suggestions of their own for what action we may wish to take on this petition. Those include, for example, insisting that their points are properly addressed by the Scottish Government. They also suggest that human rights infringements in the context of upholding children and families rights could be explored by bodies such as the Children's Commissioner, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Human Rights Commissioner. In that context, I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. When this particular petition is, I am sure that all members are the same, an unusual large amount of submissions and lobbying to all of the members on the panel. From my own perspective, I think that there seems to be a confusion of approach in my opinion around a number of councils. I am aware that the Education and Skills Committee is currently working on something similar to that. It seems to me that we would be able to invite them to, or at least write to them in terms of the petition that has come into us, to add to their investigation in that respect, because they are doing quite a bit of work on this. To declare what the Education and Skills Committee has done, it has declined to produce a stage 1 report until we know that there is a code of practice in place. That is because we were not satisfied. The bill was predicated on the code of practice and, as a committee, we took the view that it was not possible to produce a stage 1 report until we knew what that said. I think that that work is on-going, but what the Education and Skills Committee is looking at is the Children and Young People Information Share in Scotland bill, which has been drafted as a consequence of the judgment in the courts about the current position. It is addressing a lot of the concerns that are being identified. We do know that the GERFEC process is not being debated in the Parliament. It has been argued through in the Education and Skills Committee, but in the full Parliament itself. I wonder whether some of the suggestions offered by the petitioners around the children's commission or the quality and human rights commission or the Scottish human rights commission might be the most appropriate way for the petitioners to go rather than for an independent review to be called forward by the committee to the Government. We could perhaps allow the petitioners to explore raising concerns with the bodies that they have identified in their most recent email. I am struggling to work out what we can do further than what the Education and Skills Committee is doing. It is an issue that is raising a lot of concern. We have to recognise that, but I am struggling to see what more the Petitions Committee can do over and above what the Education and Skills Committee can do, other than perhaps send what we have here to the Education and Skills Committee. To be clear, in all the years that I have been in the Parliament, I do not recall a committee declining the responsibility of writing a stage 1 report on a piece of legislation. Critically, that legislation is in response to the concerns about the policy that we are identifying in court. That is entirely included in the issue about what has happened around named person. I recognise this strong argument for referring it to the Education and Skills Committee to ask the committee to look at it in the context of what we are doing around the bill, which is in response to the problem with the policy in the first place. The question is whether people will agree to that. I do not now be interested in the views of other members. I do not know, Angus, if you have got a view. I think that that is the way forward. For clarification, can we get some advice if it is forward to the Education and Skills Committee? Will the committee then have the option to forward it to the Equalities and Human Rights Committee or the Justice Committee? The suggestion is that that is a route that the petitioners may consider. We might argue that we can see the force of that argument in them doing that. That is the way that it might be done. It would not be for this committee to do that, I do not think. I will clarify that. If we do not refer it to the equality and human rights on a human rights basis, the petitioner can request that. If we have given it to the Education and Skills Committee, what happens at that point? We can maybe get some clarification. My understanding, and we would need to check in terms of giving advice to the petitioners, is not that the petition would be sent, but the issues that have been identified in the petition would be something that, presumably, you can make a request to these bodies to explore. I know that some of them, or I understand that some of them, will have been involved in some of the discussion around implications of the name person policy in any event, because it was a matter of discussion in the courts. The question for us, as the petitioners committee, in terms of dealing with the petition, as opposed to the issues that have brought the petition here, is whether we want to refer the petition to the Education and Skills Committee to inform its work in highlighting those issues, the data protection issues, as part of the scrutiny of the Children and Young People Information Share in Scotland Bill, which, as I have said already, is a bill that is there because at a court level it has confirmed that it was issued around the policy. I suppose that the separate question is whether we would want to say to the petitioners that they might want to seek advice about how that engagement with the bodies that they have identified could be taken forward. I agree, convener, that that is probably the positive way forward. It is not a case of trying to pass that on to something. I think that it is a situation in which it has been identified as being of grave concern, but I think that it is best served in the work that is done within the Education and Skills Committee. I think that the thing that I would want to underline is that this is not an issue that the Parliament has not addressed and will have to address again. The Scottish Government will have a responsibility to come back to the Education and Skills Committee. Once it is billed to go through, the committee is saying—not unanimously, I would have to say, but the committee has agreed not to produce a stage 1 report on the bill that the Government wants, on its policy to address the weaknesses that were identified in the court. It is a very live issue in the Parliament. The separate question about the human rights dimension as identified in the petition I think that we would perhaps want to give advice to the petitioners about how that might be taken forward. Of course, the petitioners always have the right to return with a further petition if they felt that that was not something that was satisfying their concerns. I do not think anybody in here wants to dismiss the concerns that have come that have driven the petition because clearly it is a policy area that the Parliament has wrestled with over time. I take it that we are agreeing to refer the petition to the Education and Skills Committee to allow them to look at the consideration of the data protection issues, raising the petition to be included when the committee resumes its scrutiny of the bill, but that we would also identify for the petitioners what other options there are in terms specifically of the human rights issues. Does that agree? In that case, if we can move on to the last petition for consideration today, which is petition 1695 by Ben and Evelyn Mundell on access to justice in Scotland. Can I welcome David Stewart MSP and Edward Mountain MSP for consideration of this petition? The petition is linked to EU milk quotas. In the UK, farmers were permitted to trade their quotas. However, in a small number of ring fence Scottish areas, free trading quotas was not permitted. The petitioners argue that, quote, the ring fence put an enormous burden on any dairy farmer in the southern isles of Scotland who is either having to give up production or cut back production. The petition is focused on access to legal advice and support on human rights law rather than the human rights impact of the ring-fencing policy itself. The committee first considered the petition in 7 June when it agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the First Minister's advisory group on human rights leadership. Responses have now been received and the petitioners have responded to those. I wonder if it might help our consideration task. David Stewart and Edward Mountain want to say something before we conclude. Thank you very much, convener. I thank the committee for allowing me to come along to give some background information about the family. You will know that I am a strong supporter of the petition's committee and I am glad to say that there are a couple of survivors from my area who are still here. I welcome them both. You will know that I have already given some evidence to the committee before and in a previous iteration. I also gave evidence in the previous session. Perhaps I can give some background. I have been involved with the family for several years. I would also like to thank the previous MSPs for supporting the family, not least Jimmy McGregor and Peter Peacock. I would like to thank Edward Mountain for his work and I welcome the Mindell family to the gallery. As I said last time, convener, this is a highly complicated case, but it is well summarised in the papers that you have received. On the surface, it is about the ring ffencing of dairy farmers' milk quotas, particularly, but not exclusively, within the southern Isles ring ffenced area. The fundamental question to me is how an ordinary Scottish family on a modest income can seek redress and remedy for potential breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights and Justice in general. The simple answer is that they should seek legal representation through the civil legal aid scheme. You will know, convener, that the family has been in touch with more than 50 lawyers, either in person or by phone, but the vast majority will not deal with human rights cases. Those who will have said that they will only deal with prisoners or people who have immigration issues. One lawyer who agreed to take up the case wanted £25,000 in upfront payment before proceeding. That payment at the time represented double the family's disposable yearly income. Mr Mrs Medell told me that many farmers in the ring ffenced areas were placed in an impossible situation with a milk price below the cost of production. That led to the forfeit of their property, and that was outlined in the papers that you have. That is a breach of article 1, protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Farmers in that position had no money to be interested in overdraft and had to incinerate perfectly healthy cows at less than £500 per head. They had no money to diversify, suffered severe stress and, in some cases, lost their home and business. I would stress that this is not just about one family, much as the Medells are in a terrible tragic position. It is about how you right a wrong. As I said last time, I appear before you, surely the test of any advanced democratic society is how easily and transparently you can seek legal redress at the highest level. I will conclude, because I know time is short, in five very quick points. The family believes that there has been a major miscarriage of justice for themselves and for their neighbours and the wider area, which I would support. I do believe, and I accept that you do not have a particular remit over this, but I do believe that the remit of the Scottish Human Rights Commission should be altered and expanded to allow them to assist in cases where people have found it possible to access the services of law and respect of human rights. That is very much what happens with the Northern Irish Human Rights Commissioner. I also believe that the cases should be investigated perhaps in conjunction with the university. Again, that happens in Northern Ireland, and I do believe that it would be a good educational point of view as well as assisting the individual's injustice. Could I quote Judith Robertson from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, who I think appeared before the House of Lords on 2 May, and if I just quote what she said, the cheapest way to ensure that rights are delivered is to ensure that they are not breached in the first place. As she went on to say, it is difficult for anyone to take a case in Scotland. We have no power to support Henry to do that. In fact, we are expressly disallowed. I thank the committee for listening to my representations. I appreciate that the issue is very complicated. My stress to the key issue is access to human rights and legal advice at a very senior level for families that have limited funding. I echo what David Stewart has said. I thank you and the committee for giving me the opportunity to come and speak to you. Before I go any further, I would like to declare that I have an interest in an agricultural business, and the comments that I will be making will mainly be on the agricultural side. When it comes to the Mundells, I think that the important point to remember is that they had about half a million litres of milk quater, and in a particular year, I have been talking about a number of years, milk quater was trading at 28 pence a litre if you wanted to sell it, and it could be leased out at 12 pence a litre if you wanted to lease it out. However, they were prohibited from doing that because the quater was ring-fenced within an area. That was a decision taken by the Scottish Government to advance and protect another industry. For that, the Mundells have had to suffer. They are in the situation that, as their business went out and became less profitable, they did not have the capital that every other dairy farmer in the country, if they wanted to go out of dairy farming, could use to divert into other enterprises. To me, that is a fundamental breach of somebody's human rights, especially if everyone else, apart from the ring-fenced area across the United Kingdom, had the ability to trade that quater. I echo the points that David Stewart has made that it is particularly difficult. I could wax lyrical for hours on milk quotas and quotas, and I will not, convener, for which I am sure you are grateful. However, the comment is that there are not that many legal minds that have a huge detailed knowledge of this, which affects their ability to get that knowledge and use it to defend themselves and others from the situation that they find themselves in. If I may, I believe that I have read the Scottish Governments and the Law Society's comments on that. I am bearing in mind what you have heard and read as a committee. Once the First Minister's advisory group on human rights leadership, when they published their recommendations in December this year, we might all be in a position to understand how the Mundells and other farmers can resolve the issue. Therefore, I would be minded, and I know that it is up to the committee to recommend that we wait to see what that says to find out how the Mundells can progress their case, because I seriously believe that they have been disadvantaged and their human rights affected. Can I maybe ask just a couple of points? Just to be clear what the policy was, what industry were they protecting, and how many other cases have been identified, not so much which have led to individual circumstances that the family has led to, but where people felt that level of disadvantage. If someone is thinking that they have contacted 50 lawyers and none of them will take on the case, why is that? Is it simply because you think that they do not have the expertise or they are not capable of getting the expertise? That is an issue that I find interesting. Perhaps I will leave it to Edward to talk about the technicalities of the cream of the issue. As far as the legal side is concerned, obviously the Law Society does advertise lawyers across Scotland that have expertise in human rights, and I am not denying that the beast does not exist. Of course it does, because there are lots of expertise in Scotland. The problem is that there is access to funding for that. Many lawyers who do have that expertise are specialising in two areas, which involve immigration being one of them. It is very difficult for the family to access it. If you have contacted 50 lawyers and you cannot get anyone to take on your case, as the American says, if it waddles and it quacks, it must be a duck. The problem is that there is a real problem accessing justice, partly through funding and partly through expertise. I will let you in a moment, but if I were to be devil's advocate and I do not have this view, then may some people think that if you cannot get one out of 50 lawyers to take on your case, it is because there is not a case? I do not think that everyone got to that stage. Basically, in one case, I said that it was £25,000 that was required before they started, they did not have access to that. In the other cases to contact, the family were not in the categories that the lawyers who did human rights were willing to take on. I just echo that having taken legal advice when I was working professionally, it is extraordinarily expensive to get top-quality advice. If there is not a wide variety of people available to do it, and it is limited down to one person, it means that they have to spend a huge amount of background reading to get up into the situation where they understand the problem, and that would then generate a huge amount of upfront costs. As far as ring fencing and quota is concerned, the ring fencing was done to ensure that a particular creamery worked and could continue business. I am not aware that there was milk quota ring fencing across the rest of the UK. It was a tradable asset, as far as I am aware, and I bought with me, for example, a company that has got milk prices and have traded it across the United Kingdom, and they are all available here to see. You could buy and sell it, but not if it was ring fenced. The problem is that once you ring fenced quota to a particular area, to a particular supplier, it does not take much to work out that the supplier knows that that quota cannot move and therefore they can dictate the price. Once you get into a situation of a monopoly, then the price is distorted, and it is usually not in the favour of the producer community. Okay, thank you very much for that. Angus? Thanks. Can we now just pick it up on that? How much was the price distorted? Do we know? I can't give you the exact figures, but it was less than other parts of the United Kingdom. We see that in fairness. We see that now, that prices are reflected and changes, and milk prices at the moment is a real issue. Farmers are seeing milk being sold in the supermarkets at about 49 pence a litre, and some people are only getting 21 pence a litre. Farmers are actually on the doorstep, so there is a huge disparity, and that was reflected then as well. I started this, but I guess that the petition is not really about that. Once you find yourself in a difficulty, what is there in the system to support somebody? I'll take you in a minute, David Bryan. I think that there's a number of facets to this. I'm not least of all in mean access to legal representation in itself. It's a human right. I'm interested, of a mind, to want to ask the Scottish Government its thoughts, process and actually ring-fencing. It seems to me that, certainly, I'm pretty sure that its intention wasn't to put the Middles into this kind of position. It's an unintended consequence, but I would certainly be of a mind to at least ask the Scottish Government its thought process in making the decisions that it actually did. We would contact the Scottish Government to ask them that. I'm quite interested. I recall when the Scottish Human Rights Commission was established and it was the reason it didn't have the right to take up cases in my recollection was because it wasn't to be in competition with UK-wide body that had those kinds of responsibilities. I wonder sometimes if, at a UK level, you've got the Scottish Human Rights Commission, so you don't need support at a UK level. I think that I'd be interested in whether they've looked at the role and remit for the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Is it something that they would want to review, given the kind of arguments there are? It may be that they don't feel that the landscape is sufficiently stable that those concerns wouldn't arise. The other question is where, if you've got the right to legal support, the whole debate around legal aid is to what extent it should be means-tested and so on. I think that there's an argument around that, but I'd be interested to hear that the Scottish Government's view was. I think that, again, there's two facets to this. The fact is that it has seemed to be a very limited access to legal representation in this particular case, and I would certainly look to investigate that a little bit further. I don't know whether the law society, perhaps, would have a view on that in terms of what we should be doing to make sure that a situation like this doesn't arise again. Rachael Y Llywydd. There are two points. Just picking up on what you just said about the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the petitioner makes the point that perhaps they should receive a higher budget in order to have a wider remit over enforcement powers. That is something that we should probably ask the Scottish Government about. The First Minister's advisory group, obviously, was due to Government policy, and therefore perhaps the human rights should be taken into consideration when creating new policies. I'm not sure if the First Minister's advisory group is aware of this example, because it's a great example, and I think that we should actually be putting that into the mix when they're considering human rights within that group. I mean, I'm assuming that it's got my own terms of legislation. They have to be human rights compliant, and they have to sign off that any proposed legislation is human rights compliant, but sometimes they're then establishing courts that that test has not actually been met. We would be writing to the Scottish Government, particularly about the remit of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, looking at its response to the report on rethinking legal aid, and perhaps asking about the First Minister's advisory group as well, if that would be agreed. Is there anything further that we could be doing or should we be doing? If the human rights were taken into consideration, that wouldn't have happened when that policy was created. Is there any evidence that suggests that that test was actually done at the time? To be fair, somebody in court would have to establish that the policy created a human rights deficit. We don't know that, do we? That's the argument being made that the problem for the petitioners is that they weren't even able to get to that point because they couldn't get a lawyer to take the case. You have dealt with this in others, and not the circumstance at all, but somebody who wants to take a case forward and just cannot get a lawyer—the law society provides a list, but you can't make a lawyer to take up a case because there are issues around that. There are just general policies that I think are quite interesting. Would there be a case to look at taking some sort of oral evidence from the Scottish Government on this? I'm never opposed to having the Scottish Government in front of me taking evidence, but can I suggest that we write to them in the first instance? There are a number of things that have been asserted here that will be worthwhile finding out what their process and policy terms are around when they make those kinds of decisions. Have they reflected on the consequence of that? Have they done any analysis of the consequence of that? Do they have a view on both the role of reglaed, but also on the question about the Scottish Human Rights Commission? Can I suggest that we do that in the first instance? Is that agreed? I think that they are reasonable and substantial. I'm not sure whether writing to them might just be to highlight that in a stronger way is better to take evidence directly. Can I suggest that what we do is that we don't have one blocking the other, but we don't preclude the possibility of having a minister in front of us, but that we do initially write to them and ask them for their review, and we can then at least interrogate them on what they've said if that's what we decide to do at a future meeting? David, what do you want? I think that the key is the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and we've heard the quote that I gave from Judith Robertson that goes in the House of Lords. I mean, the key points that she's made us to restress that is the best way to have a right system to make sure that they're not breaching it in the first place, but secondly, there must be easy access to redress, and there isn't. And as Edward, I think, put very well, in very simple terms for those that are not farmers crofters, which illuminates Angus, is basically on day one, this family had a valuable asset. When the ring fencing came in, they didn't. So it was the same beast, it was the same milk, but because of the ring fencing, they physically weren't able to take it to the creamery because they were a restriction made because of the way the monopoly operated. So it wasn't suddenly that we had a world decline in milk prices. What happened was basically they physically could not sell this, and they didn't have the transparency, because in other parts of the world, parts of the UK, you could transfer and sell your milk across the whole of Britain. Because of the situation where they were, they physically could not do that. So the creamery were not picking up the milk. So that's what caused the big problem because of the ring fencing. And this led to other families losing their property, which is the argument about the breach for you being convention human rights. To be clear, the petitioner was looking at access to support in terms of human rights. My question is, you know, the Scottish Human Rights Commission can't do it because there's another body to that responsibility. Does the body at a UK level now not support petitioners or folk who've got a problem in Scotland, which they might provide elsewhere? In England, for example, you talk about Northern Ireland, but I think there's a very particular reason why the Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland is constituting the way that it was. But in the rest of the United Kingdom, would somebody in these circumstances be in the same position? I guess that's what we would be interested in now. Edward? Sorry, just very briefly, if I could clarify. The creamery were picking up the milk, but because they were in a monopoly, they could dictate the price. And I think the very issue that you're looking at, convener, is entirely the right one, is that they had heritable profit to it. Which, if you own heritable property, can be transferred and moved on. And they were prevented from doing that. And that, therefore, I don't see it. And if I could just make an observation, and it's not for me to protect the Government at the time, but I don't believe the Government had any malice of all thought when they did this. I believe this was done in the best possible intentions, but it was in unintended consequences. And that unintended consequences have breached people's human rights, and that is my strong belief. And for that, I believe that somebody ought to hold the Government to account, convener. As was not to prolong the discussion or anything like that, or to imply what you've said is not true, I'm just confirming again that our concern is not about establishing that case, but that, as a consequence of that case, it has thrown up something in the system, which we want to address, which is, in certain circumstances, people can't access the legal advice round to breach their human rights, which perhaps some of us imagined they could have done. And whether it's the role of the Scottish Human Rights Commission or the responsibility of the UK body, or whatever, there's clearly a question there. So are we agreeing, as we've already decided, to write to the Scottish Government in these terms? And when we've got the evidence back, we'll make a decision about whether we should bring the minister in. Is that agreed? Okay. In that case, I thank Edward Mountain and David Stewart very much for their attendance. I think that we have reached the last item in our business today. I think that we want to get the opportunity again to thank all those petitioners and those who have produced submissions as a consequence of the range of petitions that we've heard this morning. I thank everyone for their attendance and I'll close the meeting.