Seòmar agus comataidhean

The second of our new petitions, PE1975, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and amend the law to prevent the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs. The petition has been lodged by Roger Mullin, who joins us in the public gallery and is a former member of an alternative elective legislative body that sits elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I welcome him to the gallery.

The SPICe briefing explains that SLAPPs is a term to describe court action taken by rich and powerful interests with the intention of silencing critical views. Court action can include defamation and data protection claims. The briefing highlights the Justice Committee’s stage 1 scrutiny of what is now the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. That committee noted a proposal to create an unjustified threats court action and recommended that the Scottish Government consider the issue further. Currently, both the UK Government and the European Commission are working to strengthen legislation in order to tackle SLAPPs.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it does not intend to undertake a review of SLAPPs, adding that the 2021 act “goes some way towards” addressing concerns.

The petitioner, Roger Mullin, has provided a written response, stating that there has been a lack of recognition of the scale of the problem. He raises concerns about the potential for “defamation tourism” if Scotland does not keep legislative pace with England, Wales and the EU.

We have also received written submissions from our colleague Michelle Thomson MSP, the anti-SLAPP research hub at the University of Aberdeen, and Ekklesia, all of which support the petition. The written submissions echo Roger Mullin’s concerns and raise some additional issues, such as the importance of investigative journalism and the impact of frivolous litigation on the court system. Ekklesia’s submission highlights the model anti-SLAPP law drafted by the UK anti-SLAPP coalition and its key features, and it urges the Scottish Government to enact similar measures.

It is an interesting petition and there is an interesting variation in how the matters are being pursued. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We can explore the most appropriate way for the further suggestion that Rhoda Grant made to be accommodated, whether that is through the committee or some other means. Are we otherwise content to proceed on the basis that we have discussed?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1918, which was lodged by Kate Freedman, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform sex education by updating guidance on implementing clear teaching rules that focus on topics such as menstruation and related illnesses; puberty; LGBT sex, including asexuality; fertility; pornography; and any other things that are deemed useful.

The Scottish Government has outlined the ways in which the views of children and young people are used to influence policy in the area, including collaboration and co-design in classrooms. Its recent submission provides examples of local engagement seeking the views of children and young people on sex education. It also states that the Scottish Government is in the process of revising its relationships, sexual health and parenthood—RSHP—teaching guidance and that it will run a public consultation to gather views. As part of that, it is exploring the best approach to gathering the views of children and young people. The submission concludes by stating that the Government is working to have the revised guidance available as early as possible in the 2023-24 academic year.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to anyone who is following our proceedings and has lodged a petition that we are considering that a considerable amount of work is done in advance of the consideration of petitions. The Scottish Government’s views are sought on every petition in order to help to inform members as we consider petitions for the first time, together with other briefings that we have received.

We will consider together two new petitions that focus on upgrades to the road network in Highland Scotland. PE1974, which was lodged by Derek Noble, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A890 as a trunk road and to resolve the safety problems that are associated with the Stromeferry bypass. PE1980, which was also lodged by Derek Noble, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A832 between Achnasheen and Gorstan as a trunk road, connecting the route into the existing trunk road network.

I note again that we are joined by Rhoda Grant this morning. I will set out a little of the background before I invite her to speak to the issues that have been raised. On PE1974, Derek Noble tells us that the A890 is mainly single carriageway but that it frequently reduces to a single track with passing places along the stretch between Attadale and Ardnarff. He highlights a history of rock falls, which have occurred since the road was opened and which continue to pose a risk to the road and its users.

Derek informs us that Highland Council has undertaken feasibility studies into two alternatives to the Stromeferry bypass, with the cost of pursuing those alternatives being estimated at between £23 million and £60 million. He believes that that level of funding should come from central Government, and it is for that reason that he calls for the road to be adopted as a trunk road.

In relation to PE1980, Derek tells us that the A832 links the previously mentioned A890 to the A835, helping to complete the west-to-east road network. He highlights that, if the Scottish Government was to adopt the A890 as a trunk road, the A832 should also be adopted, because that would provide a trunk road connection between existing trunk roads the A87 and the A835. There is now a complicated map in our heads. Derek believes that that provision could transform connectivity between Scotland’s east and west coasts and bring social and economic benefits at local and national levels.

In responding to both petitions, Transport Scotland indicates that

“the Scottish Government has no plans to trunk the A890”

or the A832. Its response also states that there are currently

“no plans to undertake a formal review of the trunk road network”

but that ministers

“keep the trunk road network under continual review with the issue last considered following publication of the Strategic Transport Projects Review”.

That was all quite complicated and technical. Before I ask members whether they would like to say anything, I invite Rhoda Grant to speak to both petitions.

PE1976, which was lodged by Derek Brown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require council tax discounts to be backdated to the date on which a person was certified as being severely mentally impaired, if they then go on to qualify for a relevant benefit.

Derek Brown submitted a freedom of information request and found that 22 of the 32 Scottish local authorities backdate council tax discounts to the date when a person received their first qualifying state benefit payment rather than the date from which they were certified as being severely mentally impaired. The SPICe briefing highlights the requirement for someone applying for attendance allowance to have needed support for at least six months before being eligible for the benefit, potentially creating a gap of six months between diagnosis and receipt of a qualifying benefit. The briefing also notes challenges in navigating benefit application processes and accessing post-diagnostic support.

The Scottish Government states that local authorities have the ability to backdate applications to the later date of either the medical certification or the date of application to a qualifying benefit. Because of that, the Scottish Government has no plans to amend the law in relation to council tax discounts.

Derek Brown’s submission details his personal experience and that of his wife, Margaret, who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, in England. He explains that they only became aware of his wife’s entitlement to attendance allowance months after her diagnosis and then her entitlement to a council tax discount the following year. The council applied the council tax discount from the date on which Margaret received attendance allowance, ten months later.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? It is an interesting petition.

I am also interested to know whether the Scottish Government is aware of the variation that is being applied to assessments by different local authorities. It would be useful for us to draw the situation to the Government’s attention along with the consequential issues that arise for individuals as a result.

I know that all the members were impressed by the petition and I think that we were troubled by some of the evidence that we received. We have had an opportunity to reflect on that. A number of issues arise from it, and I think that the committee’s likely direction of travel is clear but, in pursuing that journey, are there suggestions as to what we might reasonably do now? It would be good to hear from colleagues in relation to that.

Is not it the case that the licence is afforded as a method of pest control and is completely unworkable for large birds such as eagles because of the risk of serious injury to the birds?

Minister—

I did not repeat the question. You indicated that the licence was an adequate method of control, but it clearly is not.

The petitioner made the point that, if everybody with a bird of prey—a falcon—let it loose every day during the open season, and every day it took a hare, it would take 50 years for those birds of prey to take as many hares as are shot in one year. Are birds of prey seriously a threat to conservation of the mountain hare?