Seòmar agus comataidhean

Well, it is still pretty dubious. Most people will not get legal aid if they have even a relatively small amount of capital tied up.

In any event, I think that your answer is satisfactory—thank you, minister. I have not said that for a while.

I do not think that there is anything further that we can do. I have much sympathy with the points that Rhoda Grant made about the practical difficulties that Highland people face in general. There has been no suggestion of a solution. I am not sure that Network Rail is likely to provide an answer, although I am sure that Rhoda Grant can take that up. Our experience in writing to Network Rail is that you do so more in hope than expectation, simply because its budget is committed for a long period in advance in respect of existing programmes, as is the roads budget.

I do not see that there is much more that the committee can do, other than to close the petitions under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has said that there are no current plans to undertake a formal review of the trunk road network. The Scottish Government does not consider that the A890 and the A832

“meet the criteria to be incorporated into the strategic motorway and trunk road network”.

The Scottish Government has said that local roads are considered to be out of scope

“unless they provided direct access to a major ... airport; linked to a nationally significant National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) development site; or where a local road intersected a trunk road where bus priority or active travel measures were proposed.”

It is the Government’s view that the

“Principal A Class roads are best managed locally rather than centrally”

and that the A890 and A832 belong in that category

“as main roads which distribute traffic to and from the strategic trunk road network.”

I am merely stating the Scottish Government’s position. My view is that we need to do far more, as Rhoda Grant has rightly said, and that other methods of funding should be considered. I agree with that.

My last comment, perhaps in the light of the departure of two ministers from office last week, is that, with regard to overall priorities, we could spend more of the £60 billion of expenditure that we have in Scotland on upgrading roads. After all, unless you are a Tour de France cyclist, active travel on a bike is not really much use for the situations that Rhoda Grant described. However, that is perhaps a topic for another day.

I suggest that, in view of the detailed and helpful response of 22 January 2024 from the Scottish Government civil law and legal system division—aided and abetted, I suspect, by the keeper of the Registers of Scotland—we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on three bases: first, the requirement to validate documents is because the register of deeds is a Scottish public register, so members of the public in Scotland, who might not be familiar with the laws that govern documents in other jurisdictions, should be able to view the register with confidence that the documents that are registered therein are valid; secondly, where an individual chooses to lodge a will in the register of deeds, the requirement to confirm the document’s validity lies with the applicant; and, thirdly and finally, it might be possible for confirmation of validity to be obtained electronically rather than by posting the physical documents to the relevant jurisdiction, which deals with the question that the petitioner reasonably raised initially about what happens if original documents get lost in the post.

I asked because she cancelled an engagement to give evidence elsewhere.

Thank you very much.

I suggest that we write to the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity to highlight the petitioner’s evidence, to which you have alluded. In that, as I recall from having briefly re-read some of it, he not only asked for a ministerial statement—which I will come to in a moment—but postulated that the good work that his members and others do in the control of predators in order to encourage biodiversity and a reduction in the number of other species being lost should, perhaps, be recognised financially in the forthcoming decisions about the restructuring of agricultural support in Scotland. I mention that because I think it is an innovative suggestion and one that deserves to be considered.

I would invite the minister to consider that specific suggestion, and I have four other points for her.

First, if she gives a ministerial statement, as Mr Hogg suggested—in which he would like her to recognise predator control and the value of gamekeepers in addressing the biodiversity crisis—I would like to know whether information is available about the costs and outcomes of each conservation method. In her statement on 28 November, the minister dealt with various conservation methods, but I got the impression that she did not prefer predator control, at all; that screams out from the page. Therefore, I would ask the minister to commission research to compare the costs of each method against the outcomes. That would surely assess whether we are getting value for money.

The other points are these: what financial support is available for predator control activity? What is the minister’s view on whether more funding should, as alluded to, be made available for keepers to carry out that work to support conservation aims? Has consideration been given to area zoning to allow for targeted predator control while preventing the widespread removal of species?

First, I wonder whether we might close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government is actively considering next steps following the consultation on proposed rules to tighten existing restrictions on the advertisement and promotion of vaping products. Secondly, UK-wide legislation has been introduced to the UK Parliament, and it would extend the powers that are available to Scottish ministers on the regulation and distribution of nicotine products and give them the power to introduce regulations on the display of vaping and other nicotine products.

I apologise to the witnesses for being slightly late and not hearing all of Roger Mullin’s opening statement, but I did read yesterday’s “Thunderer” column, which I think bears a certain similarity to the arguments therein.

I want to focus on some practicalities. This is helped by Mr Mustafa’s evidence that there is no legal aid in Scotland for someone defending a defamation action, and that is very important.

The responses to the petition from the Scottish Government were made in October 2022 and on 2 March 2023. In each case, the Government’s main argument for doing nothing was that the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 will provide protection and additional tests. That is true in the sense of certain defences, which is a good thing. My point, however, is that in order to defend an action, you need to be able to pay for it. Being taken to the Court of Session is completely beyond the means even of someone who is quite well off. I know of one case where a Court of Session action cost an individual £350,000. That is probably by no means unusual.

The Minister for Community Safety, in her reply of 2 March 2023, said that a solicitor said that it costs only £25,000 to pursue a defamation action in a sheriff court. Only £25,000? Who has £25,000 to blow on legal fees at this time of austerity? I want to put that on the record, because it seems to me to be an utterly hopeless defence—so hopeless that I am surprised that the Scottish Government put it forward.

Therefore, we are talking about David versus Goliath, but David with no sling—and no nothing—and Goliath with nuclear weapons. Having set that scene—

We have established that the Government’s main defence is, to be frank, pretty hopeless as far as I can see.

Moving on from that point, the petition is 19 months old, and in the course of that time, while the Scottish Government has been busily doing nothing, the UK Government has passed an act called the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which enables SLAPPs to be struck out. It has also announced its support for a private member’s bill, the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill.

Meanwhile, I am told that the European Parliament has recently agreed a directive dealing with SLAPPs. I have not studied the detail, but I wonder whether I can ask the witnesses the following question: does this mean that in England and Wales and in the EU as a whole—which covers most of mainland Europe that is likely to be used as the jurisdiction of choice—effective legislation will very shortly be in place and therefore something that was a danger very much lurking on the horizon 19 months ago is now coming close to the harbour of Scotland and very close to our country? If it was necessary to do something 19 months ago, is it not far more urgent to do something now rather than continue to do nothing at all?