 risen gyda sefydluniaeth, fel y gwirbod, erbyn yn ei wneud sicrhau gwneud gyfu'r cymaint i ddechu'r gallu gwirbyniadau'r cymunedau, yn fwyllty pedig, ac dylai gymryd, a chwybod wir yn dechrau am y strydydoedd fod arall y cysylltu. Mae'n gweithio'md, i gael gwrdd, ac mae'n gweithio'r cymuherwydd i gael beth sydd ar ei ddim yn digwydd. Mae'n mynd i ddim yn oed yn yne, yn gweithio'r peth Ierson ddod ond gesgoledd am hallu nhw i goffa iodoedd bytiau amddrid tel einflig whys示 ac wedi aiming arweincible o ddychel iawn a'r ddudaion processes cymdhalig ti wnaeth eich y mord o'r opoj a'r wreidau cyflyt o'r views wycheltol pan os deulcoedd rydym ni m為un hynny i gael wdd dychel am bunt rydag er mwynwra i'u cyflawn pethiau amdardd i fyf ledw i hyny, ac mae pawb digwydd y teimlau iechyd i cywasgol i'r mifoedd o'deeты hyn ymddraeth. Roedd sut dechrau hyn teuluon ni wasgwch ar gyfer y blaen? Mae hwn, mae rhai hwn, ond rhan o'r dwynt phryd pan fyddai i ni i wneud wneud eich fadebryd Aberdeen, Glasgow a Edinburgh, i Beirdeunau iawn ynddo i dwi'n meddwl i'r gan ei ddechrau i gael y cael ei ddechrau. Rydyn ni dd Greeks yn iawn i'r prydyn, yn dweud i chi atoedd ac yn i'r byw. John Wilson? Mae'n ddatgani'r cyfrifath ei arquod, mae'n tyst i'n ffordd i'r llwybr chi'n ei wneud bod iawn i'r llwybr i'r llwybr, mae hynny'n edrych, iddyn nhw ddau'r helyne a'r gwagwyd애ddol i berthoedd o bethau dysgu i gyllidol i'r ilygu. McElichan sgwrdd oedd i hynny yn ei wneud o'r ilygu, y pethau o'r rhai a'r ilyw i'r ilygu i'r ilygu, yn ddigonol nhw o'r ddyflog honno o ddegon. Mae'n gael gweld wrth gwaith i'r eich gael eich cyfan i'r ilygu o'r ilygu i etymigmatau cyfrifol i'r ilygu i'ch gyfan ei ffin. David Torrance. Mae'n fawr i'r cyflawn i bwysigio sy'n ei paryswyr yng Nghymru, absytawy ar gyfer y fyrdd iawn, ac mae'n gwaith i'r cysylltu'n gwylliant ar gwyllwyr yng Nghymru, wrth fynd o'r cyfle hasiellol, bobl o bwysigio ar gyfer yr hwyl dros gyflawn hwyl. Felly mae'n bwysigio ar y byd, yn yr hyn. A'r gweithio ychydig. Jackson Carlaw. Gwymut Gwymut. Mae'r ni'n gwybod adfaith o Bromwr, ac efallai mae fyddaf maen nhw nhw'n gwybod Fel wnaeth beth sy'n anghybeth ei wneud hynny yw roi deall y mae'r rai gweithio gyda'r defnyddian nhw yn ei chyflonu dyma'r llun oedd ysgrifost ddarganiad yn eu gyllid. Oherwydd mae'n blyw i ddod yn glasgymbr umdeg yng Nghyrch chi hyn. Felly, mae'n bryd fawr a'r ddaf yn mynd i ddulle o ran bydd y llunio. Felly, ddangos gweld yn amlwyno, mae fydd yn ddigwyddent o'r eu gyllid yma a nhw'n o'ch gaint i gthey mwy oaf Afterwards Management? Felly, invitellaodd cerdraeddur o unig oherwydd am empadiau o Oxford�on i contains mynd i gweld gan y d живill yn cynnig i wneud critical a chi oedd digwyddтивilegio iりlen mwy oherwydd y d tahun i gyflasgawd pethau ysgoleth brandwc ddiwedig yn llai'r o laen o gaelgau i gaeliol yn y gaelgiau amser, i gaeliwch yn ei ch Almostu, ond rwy'n arwain o 52.00, mae'n gaeliwch o'r gael fion o'r newid fod yn gyntafol a fydd yn oedd i ni o'r dod o'r cyhoedd o'r amser neu oedd i ni oedd wedi'u ffugiddio o'r cyhoedd, ond rydyn ni'n many Scots living in parts of Scotland who might feel that they are not getting the same level of service as a result? Y pwynt am wnaeth ddweud y farchfydd hwn o'rych. The other side of the coin is the sort of infrastructural providers. Presumably, if you are doing this in a larger scale, there is a sort of economy instead of a scale from provision. So, is it worth writing to BT and a number of the other providers to see what their view on this would be? I know, obviously, in my patch in Hands In Islands, following the BDUK money, mae'r gweithio ar gyfer Ileidau Llywodraeth yn Ileidau Llywodraeth. Mae hynny'n dweud hynny'n dweud 100 miliwns y pwg ar y Ymgwrth Gwlad Ymgwrth Gwlad, maen nhw'n ddwy'r ddweud o'r cyhoeddfa, a'n ddweud o'r ddechrau'r ddweud? A gael, mae nid o'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'i ddweud. Rydyn ni'n ddweud o rydyn ni'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. Felly mae'r dnewid yw'r twelальнаяeth, mae'n ffwrdd i'r ddod rwynt y mae'r ddau i ddiweddol, a'i rhaid i ddweud o unrhyw o reilio i ddetallu cyffredinol arall, oeddod y bautyr o'r cynod ei cyfrifol. Pwy oedd gennym yn cael ei gŷn yma yn ddod ābyddol ac yn dda o gyffredinol i eich ddau y gynall a oedd ei ddweud, ac wedi gofio ar gyfer dyma i'r ddechrau sydd yn ddod, i mi'n gweithio am dda ni ym mfawr i'n rhaid i'r ddweud. Mae'n rhaid i'r ffrindfyrdd o Mr Macfarlane. Rwyf y gwaith y cenderfwy ar gyfer gyntaf y maen nhw ac yn gweithio i ddiogelu'r cymdeithasol. Rwyf yn ei confirmio gyda'r gweithio'r cyfrifiadau. Rwyf wedi'i medyng y cenderfwy ar gyfer gyntafol, mae'n meddyn i ddysgu'r gyllideb ratrhe MODIn a nhw'n ddych i'r gwaith i'r gydir i'r methu sy'n byddan nhw'n gallu bod ei ddim yn diogelw i'r ond we hope that he gets home safely and we've made provision for that. I'll suspend first for two minutes to allow our new witness to join us. If we could restart the committee, our second new petition is PE1525 by Catherine Fraser on access to justice. Members are not by the clerk, the spice briefing and the petition. We have apologies for Mary Scanlon who has met Mrs Fraser and she spoke to me earlier, Mrs Scanlon spoke to me earlier just to say that she's very supportive of this individual petition. I welcome the petition, Catherine Fraser, to the meeting. Also for the record, could I make it clear that I've met Mrs Fraser before? She came to see me as one of the regional MSPs for the Hanson Islands. Before Mrs Fraser speaks, it might be worth stating on the record that the committee cannot become involved obviously in individual cases, that's not the rule of the committee. Members are aware that the petition was involved in the court action that the committee consideration must be about the general policy issue and not specifics of any court case. That just reflects our current standing orders. Mrs Fraser, if you could perhaps give us a five minute maximum presentation and I'll kick off a few questions and ask my colleagues to be involved. Good morning and I would like to thank the convener and the committee for inviting me here today to talk about my petition, access to justice for all. I felt compelled to raise this petition primarily due to my own personal experience in trying to access justice and through this the realisation that there is in fact a major feeling in the way the justice system operates specifically in defamation cases. Under current legislation defamation cases are excluded from receiving legal aid other than in very exceptional circumstances. Justice is about fairness and impartiality and regardless of the nature of the case justice should be accessible to all. If a case is deemed to be of public interest when it goes through the court process there must be provision in place for people like myself who try to challenge a decision but are prevented from doing so because legal aid is refused purely on the grounds of the nature of the case. The right of appeal serves very little purpose if it is not accessible to everyone who has gone through the court system. No innocent person should ever be left in a position of being found guilty and wrongfully punished with no means of challenging the decision whether it be a criminal or civil matter. The validity of every decision should be of equal merit to the justice system and there should be no discrimination. A person's inability to find an appeal should never be a barrier in accessing justice as this can only be described as prejudice and unethical. To have the knowledge that the court decision is wrong is devastating in its own right but to be unable to challenge this because a person cannot afford to is immoral and makes a total mockery of what the justice system stands for. All cases go through the same justice system and therefore equal rights should apply when trying to take up the right of appeal. What is the purpose of legal aid? Surely it is to enable people who do not otherwise have the financial means to pursue their right to justice. Why should defamation be any different to any other case? History proves that human error occurs in all aspects of the justice system and it is a model that innocent people are left to stand alone in their fight very often for many years before the truth is eventually heard. How much worse for people who are not even afforded the opportunity to have the judgment of the court scrutinised? Surely a court decision should be reached on logic not lack and on evidence not opinion. To reach a court decision based on the balance of probabilities and the perspective of one sheriff does not guarantee justice. How many members of the public are actually aware of the failings and inadequacies within the system which leaves people open to the very real risk of suffering and injustice? From meetings and conversations with professionals within the legal justice and law enforcement professions these failings are acknowledged and it would seem widely accepted as just the way the system operates. Although these people are part of the system they seem powerless to take any action to make changes to improve the modus operandi. On a personal note while trying to access justice the many words of sympathy along with the standard response of seek legal advice was of no benefit whatsoever. To be advised by several people within the system that the truth is not always heard in court and that a different sheriff may take a different view of the evidence and reach a different decision is of no consolation to anyone who has suffered an injustice. Words are easy but unless provision is in place to allow everyone with no exception to have access to justice any words are meaningless. Every taxpayer will have their own views on how their taxes should be spent, what is worthwhile and what is a waste. While my petition was open for signatures there were some very negative views regarding this. I would challenge any of these people and anyone else who is of the same opinion to continue to hold their current views if they had an injustice inflicted upon them. I am confident they would reconsider and their opinions would change. I too am a taxpayer and believe I along with others who have suffered injustice should be afforded the same protection as every citizen of this country. To have a healthy justice system all aspects of it must be transparent, open to scrutiny and accessible to the people who depend on its integrity. Only then will the public have faith and confidence in the justice system and believe that it is more than just a lottery. For the reasons I have outlined I would urge the committee to support me in my petition to have the law changed to guarantee access to justice for all. In summary, do you agree with me in summarising your petition that you feel that our new citizens without substantial means are disadvantaged in defending defamation actions, particularly for facing large organisations or wealthy individuals? Yes. You will be aware that there was a UK test case on this, which was successful, as I understand it, under the European Convention of Human Rights. It was still and more versus the UK, the so-called Mac Leible case. It is understandable that that did lead to some changes in legislation. Do you feel that that was a helpful move in the right direction? Yes, but probably it has not gone far enough. I am not a legal person and I do not know all the ins and outs of the law. I can only talk from what I experienced. The bottom line is that I could go nowhere because there was nowhere open to me because I could not get legal aid and I could not afford to find and appeal myself. I can understand the issue around not getting access to justice, but the other point that I picked up on conversations that we had earlier was that you felt that there was a lack of expertise in the area and that you really needed to go to some of our larger cities to get lawyers who are specialised in that area. Would that be fair comment? Yes. Again, from my personal experience, there was absolutely nobody in Inverness who was willing to even touch the case or look at it. At least the people who did look at it could see where I was coming from, but again, there was nothing they could do because that is just the way the system is. Obviously, I am aware of my earlier comments just to talk about the wider situation in Scotland. There may be some issues around provision of justice in rural areas perhaps that we need to have a look at as well on this committee. For me, I feel like I have said in my petition that every person should have equal rights, regardless where you are or what the case is about. I believe that everybody should have the same right in challenging a court decision. I just believe that the means should be there to do that. Finance should never be a barrier to challenging a court decision. Thank you for that, and I bring my colleagues in. A couple of brief points from a briefing. It is not the case that legal aid is not available for limited cases of defamation or, indeed, encounter claims of defamation. How would you determine—I know that you said it was a broad sweep, but clearly that opens the door for what might be bona fide, certainly in some bona fide cases, but some not so bona fide claims of defamation. How would you or would you differentiate between the different elements of defamation? Well, no. Again, I think everybody has the right. If a person knows that they have been judged wrongly and there is nothing that they can do about it, how can anybody justify that? How can the justice system say, well, that's right? It's okay for the odd one or two to slip through the net, basically. I understand what you're saying, but there has to be some determination, because we know that there's a broad sweep when you apply defamation in terms of costs, relevance, and so on. Do you not agree that there has to be some determination as to what is a bona fide counterclaim or, indeed, a bona fide claim in terms of the legal aid act of 2007? Well, I'm not a legal person, so there are some of the things that you're saying, but as far as I, for myself, I believe that I have been defamed because the judgment against me is on public record, it is on the internet for anybody to read, and if there was any way that I could counterclaim against that, I would. I know, we can't go into your specific case, but we all have different frames of reference when it comes to looking at what is defamatory statements or not, and some of them might be in defamatory in my eyes, but might be true in somebody else's eyes. Do you not agree that that's part of the issue is rather than have a sweep up everything, that there are cases that are all drawn not being defamatory? I think that is where the court, you know, that's part of the whole process of going through the court to try and get to the truth of the matter and what is defamation and what isn't defamation, but if the wrong decision is reached, then there should be provision there for anybody to challenge the court decision. It's just like it's the door is closed, and why should defamation be any different to any other case? Well, one question, when you throw, the door might be closed to some, but if you throw the door open, we might be considering cases that don't meet the criteria that you're looking for. Thank you, convener. I think perhaps for clarity, and I think this is the point that you're effectively saying, is that there is some funding available and civilly-laid for advice and assistance, but that doesn't extend to representation in the court unless there's some much wider arching issues. I think that's the issue you're getting at. Can I ask further questions and points from members? The point that we're at now, then, is at the summation point where we decide what the next step is, so we've reached the end of the door for questions and points. It does seem sensible for us to ask the Scottish Government, the Scottish Legal Board, the Lost Types Scotland and perhaps the Scottish Human Rights Commission for views on this particular petition. First, I'll ask if the committee are agreeable with that course of events, and secondly, whether there's other people we should be writing to. In general, I think I'd seek, if I could, further clarification of the ECHR commentary particularly. We've had the situation in the case that you've mentioned, convener, but I'm not too sure that it is being or maybe interpreted correctly. I think that my understanding, I think that it was in the spice briefing, is that following the sort of test case of Steele and Morris led to further legislation in Scotland was my understanding in the spice briefing, but we can certainly get further clarity from Spice. Please take the on the action that you have mentioned. I suggest that when writing to the Scottish Government, could we seek clarification on what the term exceptional circumstances apply in relation to defending the situation that Ms Fraser brought to us today? Clearly, in the spice briefing, if we go back to the spice briefing, there is a reference made to the, I think it was then, Justice Minister in Parliament in 2007 made a statement that funding would be made available in exceptional circumstances, and I think that took on board the situation that you mentioned in terms of the legal case around a liable situation, but clearly it would be useful to find out for a clear definition of what exceptional circumstances would be, because Ms Fraser's outlined circumstances where she's found herself, and I know there are others who find themselves in similar circumstances where they feel the judicial system and justice is not served because they cannot afford to challenge decisions because the legal aid board is taking a decision not to fund the actions. So it would be useful just to get a clarification on quite clearly and also possibly ask how many exceptional circumstances have there been since the legislation in 2007 was enacted. Not the first time Mr Wilson's predicted my recommendation. I think we need to look at the actual numbers, but the main point I would emphasise, as pointed out earlier, is that there is some funding for advice and assistance, but advice and assistance is no much use to you if you're not able to representation in court. It's very, very difficult in a civil or criminal case to represent yourself, and the old cliché is, if you represent yourself, you've got a fool for a client, is a very key one. It's very, very difficult to represent yourself in respect of how good the advice and assistance you've been given in advance is. Jackson Carlaw. Thank you, convener. I was actually going to make a similar point to John Wilson, because I do think that if we simply write to the various bodies that we are suggesting on the most general principle underpinning the petition, then the response we're going to get is that there are no plans to change it because it would open the floodgates and it would be unsupportable. So I think it would therefore be interesting in writing to them to follow the point that John Wilson has done, but also to ask what discussions or consultations there have been, meaningful consultations or discussions there have been about the potential expansion of the criteria that would allow for a degree of additional support to be offered in circumstances where I think there would be, in the sense that we've understood the evidence this morning, likely cases we would wish to have seen supported as opposed to those that could end up simply tying the courts down in unnecessary time, and in fact proving an obstacle to other justice being progressed. That's a good point. Are committee members agreeable that we take that course of action? Any further points that we've missed that committee members wish to raise? Well, thank you for that. I want to thank Catherine Fais for coming along and providing evidence for us. As you can see, we've taken this petition forward. We will write to these various bodies, we'll get the information back and the clerks will keep you in touch with on-going developments on the petition. I want to thank you again for travelling through today and taking the time to come and give us your evidence and answering the questions. I'll suspend for two minutes to allow our witness to leave. If we could resume our committee, with the committee's agreement, could I defer for a few minutes the PE1098 and PE1223? It's just that Church Stevenson was hoping to come, as you know, to Church Stevenson's. We've been very strongly supporting this petition and there's a lot of expertise in this area. Obviously, if he doesn't come within the reasonable time, because I'm aware we've got the petitioner here, I don't want to delay him as well, so perhaps if we could give it half an hour and I'll take the other petitions, would that be agreeable? Thank you. The next petition is PE1506 by Alison C. Tatum, half the Robert Burns World Federation Ltd, on renaming Glasgow Presbyter Airport to Robert Burns International Airport. Members have been noted by the clerk and the submission from petitioners. Could I, I think particularly like to ask to Brody to speak on this, because I know Mr Brody is taking a very keen interest. I know other members have as well, but I will start with Mr Brody. Thank you, convener. I think more than a keen interest. I made my position very clear. While I understand the position of the cabinet secretary regarding the name in the short term, we've now had a situation that was predicted by some, me being one that Glasgow airport, Aberdeen airport and Southampton airport would be up for sale, largely because of Heathrow Holdings investment, they hope in the next runway. That provides a dilemma because what I would not wish and I'm sure those that support this would not wish to happen is that we get confused with what's going on in Glasgow. The rationale behind Glasgow Presbyter Airport, and I said it would, you'd never use that again some months ago, but Glasgow Presbyter Airport was largely because of the airline or the major airline that used Presbyter Airport and it's belief that the attendant name of Glasgow would attract more and more passengers, just as it happened in Frankfurt, Sweden, France, et cetera. My view is quite clear and I've made it very clear that this airport will be called at some stage Robert Burns international airport. It seems inequitable that we have a situation where Belfast, and I was over there just three weeks ago, has its airport named after George Best, we have John Lennon, we have Charles De Gaulle and yet we hear we have the icon of Scottish culture known whose words are translated into 195 languages across the globe. So while I understand the continuity while the airport is going through some change, and I have to say that there are some exciting things happening, but I do believe and I will do everything I can personally to make sure that this petition that comes to fruition and ultimately that airport, that successful airport, will be named Robert Burns international. I think that Jackson Cowell, you've got an interest to this. Yes, convener. I listened to what Mr Brodie says with interest. At the end of the day, however, two things have happened since we last considered the petition. The first is that there have been further commercial announcements regarding the actual operation of the airport, which have been hugely detrimental to the likely success of the business plan that we are hoping will yet manage to secure the future of this airport with the removal of a very significant level of passenger traffic. There are different views about the way in which this airport should proceed with many feeling that it's most likely successful route is as a freight hub rather than a passenger transport hub and that in partnership with Glasgow there could be a successful future for it in that light. The second thing that's happened is that the Management Committee charged with the responsibility of securing the future of this airport has considered the very nature of the petition and concluded that that would not be in the best interests of any plan to secure the future of the airport. A decision that has obviously been endorsed by the cabinet secretary, the Deputy First Minister, not someone I would normally agree with, but I understand and suppose that she has taken all this information into account together with those people who've been charged with the responsibility for taking this forward. It's concluded that that's not the way to go, in which case I feel we should close the petition. Mr Brody, I think you wanted to... It's just on the point that has been made. I think those of us that have been perhaps a bit closer than Mr Carlaw to what was going on would understand why Glasgow airport requires to increase its attractiveness by increasing its revenue. While I agree that the key elements of maintenance, repair, overhaul or maintenance at Presswick are very important, it escaped his notice, not just the other two items that he mentioned, but the Presswick has now been nominated as one of the potential six spaceports, and we have to look forward as to what's likely to happen. While I understand in the short term the need for continuity with the attraction and there are interests already being shown both in terms of the freight, the repair and overhaul facility and indeed passenger at Presswick, I think that I would wish that we would keep the petition open and monitor this on a regular basis. The slogan burns in space doesn't really altogether sit comfortably with me as a metaphor for even carrying it. I'm not surprised. I'm reluctant to intrude in family grief. I think that it might be useful for perhaps other members of the committee to get involved. Mr Wilson, do you have any suggestions for a ways forward? Since you're saying that I've been very diplomatic today, as I always try to be, particularly with yourself, convener, I think that Chick Brody is in many respects right that what we might have got from the Cabinet Secretary is a decision that didn't fully consider the views and aspirations of particularly the people of Ayrshire, but also the people of Scotland, because after all this committee today is meeting in a committee room named after Robert Burns. We took a decision as a Parliament to name the committee rooms and number one on that list was Robert Burns, and this is why we now meet in committee room one that is now known as Robert Burns committee room. So there are views out there that actually support the move to name the airport after Robert Burns because of its location, because of the world's renowned reputation that Robert Burns not only has as a poet, but also the views that he actually expouses about Scotland and the views that are expected all over the world, so it is a well-known name. Other airports and other locations have decided to name their airports after famous sons or daughters of those areas, and I think we should write to the Cabinet Secretary once again to ask whether or not there would be a possibility of her to reconsider the decision and to enter into dialogue and seek views of others, not just commercial views, but the views of the people in and around Prestwick and Scotland to find out whether or not it would suit the best commercial sense for that airport to be renamed after one of Scotland's most famous sons. Can I just bring us in? I will bring you in, Mr Carroll. Can I ask David Torrance what your view is in John Wilson's suggestion? I'm happy to go along with that and keep the petition open as well. Thanks, convener. I'm not right sure. We could write to the Cabinet Secretary, the Deputy First Minister, sorry. However, we have done that and she has given our decision, so I'm not really sure on what's going to overturn that decision. For her in particular. Thanks, convener. I mean, I certainly take note of the Deputy First Minister's comments at the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee in June, where she stated that it was concluded that there are strong commercial reasons to retain the Glasgow-Prestwick airport name rather than to rename it the airport. However, rather than to rename the airport, so taking that on board, you could perhaps argue that there is a slight argument to contact the Cabinet Secretary once more to see if it would be possible to, while retaining the Glasgow-Prestwick name, have a sub-name, if possible. You know, I mean, anything is worth a try. Well, I think we have a majority for that, but I'm bringing in, for one more time, Mr Carlaw and Mr Brody, but I said I really don't want it on the huge debate on this, but Mr Carlaw. I just want to make the point that it is the commercial future of this airport that has got to be the thing that is secured. The Cabinet Secretary, together with those people charged with the responsibility of securing the commercial future of this airport, have concluded that changing the name would not help. And whilst it is true that other airports have changed their names, they have usually been successful commercial airports who, in tribute to somebody, have subsequently changed the name. They did not change the name to JFK in New York because it was a failing airport. They did not change the name of Charles de Gaulle in Paris because it was a failing airport. The name change took place in tribute to the individual concerned, not to secure the commercial future of the airport. I think that it is wrong for us where those charged with the responsibility have concluded that the commercial future of this airport is best secured by retaining its name, argues to the contrary. Thank you for that. I can allow Mr Brody in very briefly, but I said I really don't want to have a huge debate on this. I think that we could spend a number of hours debating airports across the world if we know so. That will be very brief. I mean, one of the disappointments of Prestwick in the past has been the lack of marketing and the selling of its capabilities, which are quite considerable, and the branding is very important. Of course, Mr Carlaw, and I don't disavow that the cabinet secretary, Deputy First Minister, took a decision on the basis of short-term continuity of commercial needs. It does seem paradoxical, however, that the theme of the airport is going to be based on burns. I thank members for that. I think that that was quite an interesting argument. Clearly, there are different views on this, but, nevertheless, there is a majority suggesting that the petition will be continued and we write to the Deputy First Minister on the terms outlined by John Wilson. If I can go back to our previous petition, Agenda item 2, which is PE1098, by Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of Kingsea Community Council, and PE1223 by Ron Beatty on school bus safety, members have a note by the clerk and submissions, I welcome Stuart Stevenson to the meeting, who is a long-standing constituency interest in Mr Beatty's petition, and I also welcome Mr Beatty, not least for his very great help earlier, an earlier petition that we had. I again thank Mr Beatty for his dedication, commitment in relation to this petition. He is a great example to other petitioners of just having a solid view of continuing a petition over a number of years, so thank you very much Mr Beatty for that. Mr Stevenson, can I ask if you could give us a very brief summary of the issues? Thank you very much, convener, and I think that you are perfectly correct to refer to this as a long-standing issue. It in fact was submitted to the committee 2,037 days ago. There have been 24 discussions so far in the committee, 55 occasions on which correspondence has been received by the committee, and on 26 October, when I then minister responsible for the subject appeared in front of the committee, we ended up with 16 pages in the official report. I am just going to very briefly quote from a couple of things that came from that. We had discussion and I, as minister at that point, made reference to the development of a toolkit, which I think has taken a little longer than we might hope. Perhaps one of the people who appeared in front of the committee on that date was chief constable Gia Nasi of South Wales Constabulary. He made the point in relation to the signage on school buses that the legislation is fairly broad and permissive. Local authorities could go much further in specifying what signage it would like to see in vehicles. Of course, the UK transport minister, Mike Penning, was there, and chief constable referred to what he said. The legislation about minimum signing and local authorities could go much further. There is a great deal more that could be said on the subject. The bottom line is that the heart of the subject is protecting our youngsters in their transit to schools. We have established beyond doubt, and we have heard it from the UK minister. We have heard it from chief constables in south of the border, chief constables north of the border and from the current transport minister and myself in my time as transport minister. There is no legislative barrier to more being done to make signage on school buses more distinct and offer more protection to children. We have simply got to stay on this case and find a method by which we can make it a duty, if not necessarily a legal requirement, on all our local authorities to do more. We have examples, and I have been speaking to Mr Beattie earlier this morning, where there are school buses that do not even carry the school bus sign on them, and I think that that is something that will be recognised around the table. We have to get a change of culture. We do not have to spend large amounts of money. In the present climate, a policy that is going to deliver improved safety for our youngsters without spending large amounts of money is a policy that should be adopted without further delay 2037 days since the petition was tabled. Thank you very much, Mr Simpson. That is very helpful. Obviously, there are three courses of action outlined, but before I look at that, I can ask if any committee member wishes to raise any specific points or if any view on other courses of action should take forward. Mr Beattie, I mean my views known about this. This has probably taken longer than the gestation of an elephant, and I defer to the superior knowledge of Mr Stevenson. I thank him for the clarity with which he presented the case for this continuing and for us being on the case. Thank you for that. Any other member, Jackson Carlaw? As simply to say, convener, I was encouraged by the letter that we received from Keith Brown, minister, in the sense that the principal point around which we seem to have made no progress with this petition, namely the agreement between the Scottish Westminster Parliaments, has now been resolved and the process can effectively begin to allow the legislative devolution competence to transfer to this place and for that and the other actions that are associated to proceed. I think that persistence has eventually resulted in our being able to make progress with the aims of the petition. I think that we should be pleased that that is the case. Thank you for that. Any other members wish to contribute? Our member is then happy with the courses of action which are outlined and are just to summarise very briefly. In relation to PE1098, we will continue to monitor the progress of the devolution of powers relating to seat belt provision and write again to minister of transport and veterans to seek confirmation that progress has been made in line with the timetable that was set out in the previous response that Jackson Carlaw attached on that. In relation to PE1223, we will write to COSLA and the Association of Transport Co-ordinate Officers to seek their views on the difficulty in identifying a local authority to take on the pilot scheme outlined in Transport Scotland's most recent response. Finally, in relation to the same petition, the committee wishes to write to the Welsh Government to seek its views on the specific issues of signage and lighting on school transport and what action is taken in this area. Are all members agreeable? I thank Mr Simpson for coming on again. He is now a non-vol member of the committee or perhaps an on-remember of the committee. I thank Mr Beattie again for his work, and I think that it has been excellent. Although Mr Simpson is quite right to say that this has gone for a long time, I do not think that it was about speed, it was about direction, Mr Simpson. We are in the right direction. Thank you very much, convener. I think that Mr Beattie is an example to us all and to all petitioners. I wish him every success. I am sure that he will not leave the case until he is delivered for the people who have led him to this particular cause. Thank you both very much indeed. If I can move on to our next petition, it is PE1509 by Lee Wright on Aberdeen, Timran, S-Rail travel improvement. Members have a note by the spice briefing on compulsory seat reservations and standing in trains and the submission. I have a couple points before I do that to ask of members of any general points that they wish to raise at this stage about that particular submission. I think that it was a particularly interesting one about a ticket that gives you a right to travel but not necessarily a seat, with the exception of Eurostar and, clearly, in high-speed trains, you would not want people to have to stand for any particular distance. The regulator does not seem to be that concerned about health and safety issues, but I thought that it was quite an interesting argument that we are making. Do members have any specific points that they wish to raise? Perhaps I could just ask—first, I understand that there is probably some pressure to close the petition, and I do accept that there has been an improvement plan put forward, which is certainly welcome. I had a couple of specific points. The first one relates to the lack of redoubling of the Inverness end. Much of the problem that we have on that line is that it is effectively—we lose the road equivalent—it is a single-track road. That is the main problem. For example, one train is currently scheduled to wait for 13 minutes at Nurn because it is single-track. Clearly, there are issues of doubling up the line, and there is a similar argument for the train south. I would just like perhaps if we could clarify that point with the transport minister. The lack of path for freight is one, and there is a climate change issue if we can get freight off the road and on to rail. That really helps to achieve some of our climate change targets. I will give a bit more detail to the cleric, but would members be agreeable if we could do a note with a view to perhaps closing this at a later period? If I move to the next petition, it is the Pt 1513 by Ron Park on equal rights for unmarried fathers. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Obviously, there are a number of options that are outlined in the suggestions from the clerk. The key thing that I would put forward, and members will know that I did a social work background in my earlier life, is that I would be with some of the submissions that we have gotten. Clearly, the key element of Scott's law is that the best interests of children are the key focus that we should be focusing on. The other factual thing that I picked up in the submissions was that the vast majority of fathers in Scotland do have parental rights and responsibilities, which is quite important just to specify. There was some view that we should avoid some sort of parent-centred approach in our submissions in Scotland to be child-centred. I think that that is just picking up some key points on the submissions, but could I throw them to questions and points from committee members? That is absolutely right in terms of what we have to consider the children involved. My concern was that it should be parent-centric. When I look at some of the evidence, the fathers' rights are certainly less than those of the mother. I know that somebody made a point that it takes too to provide conception, but it is only one to deliver. That is, as we know, true. However, in terms of looking at a child, it does not stay as newly born forever. It grows and, as there will be requirements to ensure that a child's rights are protected. Part of that protection is, I would submit, having the relationship with the other parent—in this case, the father. I do, in looking at Professor Elaine Sutherland's report, that her request to empower the court to order DNA testing of the child so that the registration of the father should be applied in terms of the article that she has written. On that basis, it does protect the interests of the child on-going. I know that, in some cases, there has been mentioned, again, rape, etc. That, of course, is negated, but, by and large, if we look at 97 per cent of fathers are registered. I do not see why we assume that the other 3 per cent are all subject to cases of domestic abuse of violence. Of course, I do think that that right should be protected, and I support Professor Sutherland's views on her article, which I find most constructive. There are, I think, a lot of sensitivities, as well as practicalities associated with the petition, and there are a number of recommended actions that I see to us. I would, on this occasion, given the sensitivity of the subject and also that of the petitioner himself, I would, on this occasion, like to write to the minister asking whether, in hindsight, they potentially regret conflagrating those children who are born as a result of rape with those children who are born as a result of a brief but consensual relationship. I think that the petitioner was entitled to feel a certain injustice from that conflagration of those two categories, and I think that it was unwise and actually unhelpful. Thank you for that. Do other members wish to contribute? Are members then happy with the suggestions on writing to the Scottish Government? I think that there are four points there that I can summarise, if you wish, and the additional point with Jackson Carlaw. Just for the record, to summarise that, we are continuing this petition and we are seeking the Scottish Government's views on, first of all, the point that Jackson Carlaw raised, and the other four points are families need fathers Scotland's proposal that mothers should provide a reason when registering a birth without providing the father's name, that the Lost Society Scotland proposal that courts be given the power to order DNA tests when seeking to determine paternity, and that planned child loss suggestion at the question of whether all fathers should automatically have parental rights and responsibilities referred to the Scottish Law Commission for consideration of inclusion in the future programme, and finally, why it considers that the prospect of other raising proceedings to remove parental rights and responsibilities from one from which I said a brief consensual relationship would be unfair. Is that agreed that we action this petition this way? Thank you for that. I will just move on to our next petition. It is P.E.1514 by Norman Boney on making time for reflection representative of all beliefs. Members are not by the clock and the submissions. Obviously, I invite suggestions from members, but there is a potential course of action, which is that standing orders also provides that the committee may refer the petition to anybody to take any action that considers appropriate. I would recommend that the committee may wish to refer the petition and submissions to the Parliamentary Bureau to the account of its review. If such referrals made the committee to close the petition, but in doing so should know that any individual or group is able to contact their own MSP or the Poseidon officer directly with suggestions who may be invited to lead time for reflection. The next petition is P.E.1516 by Malcolm Lamont on referenda for Arkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Members have a note by the clerk on the submission and could invite contributions from members. There is a potential option set out, which is that the committee may wish to defer any for action that is the result of the referendum and the pen, since it is known. Can I ask the views of the committee on that course of action? Are members agreeable that we do that? I also think that we take recognition of the submission from the Scottish Government, which indicates a whole raft of proposed changes. I think that we should wait and see what happens. I am prepared to go along with that. I am not altogether clear of my own mind as an issue of principle whether the outcome of the referendum on September 18 is relevant. The issue of principle is whether we believe that the Scottish Government should be funding additional referenda for the islands. I imagine irrespective of the outcome of the referendum before us. I am not altogether clear that the case for that has been made, I have to say, and I would otherwise have been inclined to close the petition. The Government has made quite clear what its position is, and it does not support the petition and outlines a lot of work that has been done with our islands and our future, which is a very positive agenda that has a lot of cross-party support. We have a number of options. We have two options. We can defer this until after the referendum, or we can take Mr Carlaw's point and we can close the petition here and now. Can I get views from the committee on which option? I agree, and based on what has already been done, we should close the petition. Mr Wilson? Mr Tords? I would prefer that it was left open until after the referendum. I would be content to close the petition. I also add that it is possibly unfortunate that the petitioner did not consider bringing this forward when the Edinburgh agreement was being negotiated. I think that it is rather late in the day now to even be discussing this. Thank you. By majority, the committee wishes the petition to be closed, and that is the decision of the committee. The final comment today is on P1522 by Simon Brogan. I am proving bulk fuel storage safety. Members have a note by the clerk on submissions. I think that we had a very good submission from Mr Brogan at a previous meeting. I mentioned then that I had actually met him wearing my regional hat, and I certainly know from discussions I had in Orkney just last week when this was raised directly to me. I think that there is quite a lot of issues across island authorities about safety. It is quite complicated issues about who is responsible, but I do note that the Scottish Government is looking to review the work in this area, which I certainly support. I would suggest that we give all the information that we have in relation to this petition to the Scottish Government, and then we will look at it again in the future. Are members agreeable? Thank you very much for that. I think that that is the end of our meeting. I formally close the meeting, and if members could stay behind just very briefly, I will allow members of the gallery to leave.