Continued Petitions

The next petition is PE1542, by Evelyn Mundell, on behalf of Ben Mundell and Malcolm and Caroline Smith, on human rights for dairy farmers. Members have a note by the clerk, a letter from the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and an email from Mrs Mundell.

As we all remember, colleagues, the petition calls on the Scottish Government to accept that individual dairy farmers’ human rights have been breached by the ring fencing rules for milk quotas. Ring fencing was introduced in 1984 and was abolished earlier this year. Mrs Mundell lodged a petition in exactly the same terms in 2009.

There is sympathy for the Mundells’ position, and for that reason the committee has considered the issues that are raised in the petition and has sought views. We heard from David Stewart and Jamie McGrigor. We also wrote to the Scottish Human Rights Commission again in February, but it told us that its view has not changed since we wrote previously, in 2010. Its position remains that, in such a dispute, it is for the courts to rule on whether Scottish ministers have breached human rights. The committee is not a court of law and we cannot provide such a ruling.

The last time that we discussed the petition, we agreed to seek the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee’s views on the issues that the petition raises and to ask that committee whether it would be willing to consider the issues in the context of any future work. The RACCE committee has now responded to us, and its letter states clearly that, as the ring-fencing decision was a democratic one, it will not be looking into the matter. It repeats that the only body that could provide the ruling that Mrs Mundell seeks is a court.

In those circumstances, my view is that we have gone as far as we can with the petition. We need to be careful that we do not create unrealistic expectations. As far as I can see, there is nothing more that the Public Petitions Committee can do. I will be grateful to hear other members’ views, but I am minded to close the petition.

I am a little disappointed. I feel that the petitioners have been failed in regard to support from the Government. They have come back to this petition time and time again and they have stressed that they do not have the means to challenge the Government on the issue. I feel that we have let them down, because it is a fact of life that, unless they had large sums of money, they were not going to be able to defend themselves, so they were up against the wall from day 1.

The fact that we have not found a solution for the petitioners is disappointing. I feel that they have been let down. I feel that somehow, somewhere, there should have been a mechanism to better protect the rights of citizens of this country. We have clearly failed them. I feel quite sad that we may take the decision to close the petition today.

I would have felt more comfortable if a solution had been found whereby the petitioners’ rights could have been protected and they could have had a fair hearing in another place to pursue their human rights. I think that we have let them down. I am sorry to say that, convener, but I feel that we have not been able to reach out and support them in the way that I would have liked to see them supported.

As there are no further questions, what action would members like to take on the petition?

Do members agree to close the petition?

Reluctantly.

Members indicated agreement.

The petition is now closed on the basis that the decision to ring fence was democratically made and the petitioner’s claims and allegations can be determined only in court.