Thank you, convener. I welcome Evelyn and Ben Mundell, who are in the public seats.
Members will know from the committee papers that I have spoken on the petition at the Public Petitions Committee about three times. I will give some basic background information. As I said to the PPC, the case looks highly complicated—and elements of it are complicated. On the surface, the issue is the ring fencing of dairy farmers’ milk quotas in the southern isles ring-fenced area. However, for me, the issue is much more fundamental: it is about how ordinary families on a modest income can seek redress and justice. I think that this committee accepts that that is important; I noticed that, in your annual report last year, the convener made the point that human rights are vital.
The simple answer is that families should seek redress through the legal system. That, of course, is right. However, members will know from my presentations to the PPC that the Mundells have been in touch—in person or by phone—with more than 50 law firms, but they have found that the vast majority of them will not deal with human rights cases. That is the first problem.
The second problem is that many firms that deal with such cases restrict their involvement to issues to do with prisoners or immigration. That is a big restriction. One lawyer agreed to take up the case but wanted an up-front payment of £25,000 before proceeding; at the time, that amount was double the family’s yearly disposable income.
The Mundells have told me that many farmers in the ring-fenced area were placed in an impossible situation, given that the milk price was below the cost of production, which led, in effect, to the forfeit of their property. At the time, the quota was worth about £450,000, which is a massive sum relative to the family’s income. As I said to the PPC, my view is that the situation is a potential breach of article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights.
Let me give you some context. At the time of the ring fencing, in the United Kingdom as a whole, 36,000 dairy farmers had the asset of the milk quota and were perfectly free to realise the full value of the quota, to assist their businesses. Fewer than 200 people, who were in the ring-fenced area, were denied the right to trade, swap or sell on their milk quota, for complicated reasons to do with the ring fencing. I consider that to be a breach of their rights.
I am conscious of time, convener, so I will finish with a couple of quotations. I was pleased that the First Minister set up the advisory group on human rights leadership. In its report, the group said:
“Progress then has evidently been made on Scotland’s journey. However, it is critical to acknowledge that there are gaps and shortcomings too ... too many people are not enjoying their rights in everyday life.”
The advisory group went on to say:
“All of this leads to a denial of access to justice ... It is a matter of political choice and priorities. What is needed is the political will to implement the solutions.”
When Judith Robertson from the Scottish Human Rights Commission—she is well known to the committee—appeared before the House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2018, she said:
“The cheapest way to ensure that rights are delivered is to ensure that they are not breached.”
She went on to say:
“It is difficult for anybody to take a case in Scotland. As I said, we have no power to support anybody to do that; in fact, we are expressly disallowed.”
In a sense, we are at a disadvantage in Scotland. The UK body has different powers.
I have read the committee’s paper 1 and urge the committee to consider the recommendations in paragraph 43. It is suggested that the committee write to the Human Rights Consortium Scotland and JustRight Scotland, that it considers the consultation on legal aid and that it writes to the Faculty of Advocates, in particular about legal advice.
Those are sensible suggestions. There is a huge gap that is unfinished business for Scottish human rights. That is well illustrated by the Mundells’ case, but I stress that they are just an example of the families who have been affected. I do not have a complete track of them all, but many have gone out of business because of this disastrous position. They were not trading illegally or with a subsidy; they had great assets. The irony is that, in many parts, we are now short of dairy farmers and short of milk.
It was a very poor decision. The only way that people can address the matter is through the court system and, ultimately, the European Court of Justice. However, if they cannot get to first base, they cannot do that.
I am happy to answer questions, if I can, convener.