Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is just some free advice. [Laughter.]

I think that I agree with the first part of that. On the second part, there is no legal aid for defamation.

I thought that the chap from the Law Society in our last meeting said there was no legal aid.

I agree with Mr Torrance’s recommendation. I reassure the petitioner that the point that he has raised is an extremely valid one. Given that we will be closing the petition today, I repeat for his benefit what I might have said in a previous meeting. I played a part in proceedings on the bill that became the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. The act is extremely vague about the division of property between unmarried couples who live together, in effect, as man and wife, because it does not incorporate the very detailed provisions in the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 that apply for divorce. Those very detailed rules contrast markedly with the complete vacuum of rules in the 2006 act. To be fair to me, I made a speech to that effect at stage 3 in which I said that we did not really know what we were doing, and we did not provide sufficient clarity.

Any petitioner whose petition is closed will always feel a bit disappointed, but the petitioner has done a good job in raising an important topic. I feel slightly uneasy that the Government has not given a clearer commitment, and I hope that it will bear that in mind. Perhaps we could write to the Government to say that we feel that that is the case. There needs to be clarity, with the Government being more specific about when the corrective work will be done, whether that is through one of the devices that Mr Izatt mentioned or through primary legislation, which I suspect will probably be necessary.

If I might pursue the theme of that last question, convener, is it not the case that there is no doubt whatsoever that SLAPPs are a huge problem and that the number of SLAPPs raised or threatened is enormous? We have heard that time and time again in evidence from lawyers who practise in that area. Earlier this morning, I was reading Graeme Henderson’s submission to the Scottish Law Commission from some years ago. It referred to the huge number of interdict cases that never come anywhere near court because the pursuer—or, more often, the petitioner, because such cases are usually heard in the Court of Session—is financially so much less strong than the defender that they have not a cat’s chance in hell of affording the litigation. That is the whole point.

The Government must surely accept that that is a serious problem, which it cannot measure simply by counting the number of cases that go to court. You must know that, like an iceberg, most of the picture is submerged. You cannot measure it exactly, because there is no record of cases such as those of an oligarch who owns a Russian oil company or a mine owner from Kazakhstan—to pick two of the litigations that are quite prominent in the history of SLAPPs. I just want to establish, minister, that you accept that this is a very serious problem.

Will you answer a further question? It is good news that you have agreed to consult. We all recognise that. However, this is an ancient petition—it is becoming the pensioner of petitions. I am a pensioner myself, so I should not be rude about them, but it is not acceptable that these matters just go on and on. My questions to you are these. Can you say that the Government is supportive of taking action and not just that you will conduct a consultation? Can you say when the consultation paper will be issued? What is your target date? Is it July? Alternatively, is the answer a vague one—“sometime never”—in which case, we might be back here in a year, perhaps with another minister?

I have one last question. One of your predecessors made a reference that I thought was really not apt, which was that it does not really matter because the cost of pursuing an action in the sheriff court is only £25,000. Argument A is that that is £25,000 more than most people have got to pay for a court action and that most people therefore cannot afford that amount, so the idea that people would be able to afford such a sum is ludicrous. Argument B is that almost all of those actions will be raised by way of an interdict in the Court of Session anyway, so it is completely irrelevant to look at the cost of the sheriff court.

I do not raise that to be smart or to criticise anyone, but does the Government accept that that argument should be pushed to one side? The cost of action in the Court of Session is colossal. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds, and no individual, unless they are a millionaire or a multi-millionaire, will go to court. Having practised law for 20 years, I know that. People will not go to court even if they think that they have a cast-iron defence. That is the whole point. It does not really matter whether brilliant defences are set out, as was the case in the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. That was a good piece of legislation in that regard, as it created a range of defences and protections, but they are not good enough to protect against the real mischief here, which Mr Mullin and his colleagues have clearly pointed out.

I just put that thesis to the minister to get some reassurance for the petitioner that the consultation paper will not duck those questions and that it certainly will not repeat that particular argument.

I know that we are due to take evidence from Nicola Sturgeon a bit later—I think, towards the end of May. Do we have any information about whether she has indicated that she still plans to attend on that date?

You are endowed with greater quantities of patience than me.

I am pretty sure that the minister has studied the previous evidence session. Mr Mullen and others made the point that, in its response to the petitioner’s arguments, the Scottish Government has mostly referred to the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. However, as Mr Mullen pointed out, that is not the only type of SLAPP. SLAPPs can cover other types of action, and it would therefore be wrong to assume that only the law of defamation is in play. That is probably the main topic, but it is not the only one. Can the minister confirm that the consultation will fully cover that?

Can they can consider it? If so, I stand corrected.