Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are members content with that suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

That was in London. At this point, we have had no suggestion to that effect.

We now move into private session.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE1975, which is on reforming the law relating to strategic lawsuits against public participation—commonly referred to as SLAPPs. The petition was lodged by Roger Mullin and it 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.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 April 2024. At that point, we heard evidence from Professor Justin Borg-Barthet, Graeme Johnston, Roger Mullin and Ahsan Mustafa. I again thank our witnesses from that session for their evidence.

This morning, after our various considerations, I am pleased to welcome Siobhian Brown MSP, who is the Minister for Victims and Community Safety; Martin Brown, who is a solicitor with the Scottish Government’s legal directorate; and Michael Paparakis, who is the policy and bill programme manager at the Scottish Government’s private law unit.

I understand that, before we move to questions, the minister wants to make a short statement.

All of which is noted.

I point out that the petition was launched in September 2022, which makes it something of a teenager in our schedule of petitions. If that is a pensioner petition then, by that definition, some of our petitions are out of the Jurassic period.

We can agree on that point.

Minister, thank you very much. We do not need detain you any longer. I think that the petitioner’s aims are potentially in hand and can be resolved. I am grateful to you for that and for joining us with your colleagues this morning.

Welcome back. We continue our consideration of existing petitions. PE1973, on ending the use of sheriffs’ discretion when ruling on civil cases and providing clear legal guidance on the division of assets, was lodged by Sandy Izatt. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 and to provide greater clarity on the division of assets in cases of cohabiting couples who are separating by removing the use of sheriffs’ discretion rulings in civil cases; providing clear legal guidance to the Law Society of Scotland on the division of assets for cohabiting couples; allowing appeals to be heard when it is determined that a sheriff has the rule of law wrong but has used their discretion to prevent an appeal, at no cost to the appellant; and publishing information on what resources have been allocated to provide clear legal guidance.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. We have received a response from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety—who was just with us—in which she wrote that she was “unable to provide” an anticipated timescale for introducing a bill on cohabitation. The minister confirmed that Scottish Government officials were beginning “detailed work” on the Scottish Law Commission report on cohabitation, including an assessment of whether it would be helpful for the Government to consult on the commission’s recommendations.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, who expressed his concern about the vagueness of the information that we have received on the issue and highlighted his continued concern about the use of sheriffs’ discretion in preventing appeals.

In the light of what we have heard about the petition’s progress—the Government will move forward but does not know when it will do so, and the petitioner feels that matters remain a little vague—what are committee members’ views?

Our next petitions, which were lodged by Derek Noble, are coupled. PE1974 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A890 as a trunk road and to resolve the safety problems associated with the Stromeferry bypass, and PE1980 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A832 between Achnasheen and Gorstan as a trunk road, thereby connecting that route to the existing trunk road network.

We last considered the petitions at our meeting on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Transport, who is now the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. The cabinet secretary has responded to our request for clarity by stating that the strategic transport projects review 2

“considered local roads to be ‘out of scope’ unless they provided direct access to a major port or 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.”

The cabinet secretary has said that it was considered that

“neither the A890 or A832 met these criteria for consideration as part of the strategic transport network and were duly not included as part of the appraisal or STPR2 final recommendations.”

We have been joined by Rhoda Grant. The committee is wrestling with a fairly direct response to the aims of the petitions from the cabinet secretary, but we would be happy to hear anything that you might like to say.

The Government has given a clear direction on its position. As a committee, we have to be satisfied that we have a realistic opportunity to advance matters. I am not persuaded that we have, but Rhoda Grant’s testimony on the consequences will be on the official record of the Parliament. The committee is prepared to summarise that view unanimously and express it to the Government, with the hope that it might take further action. That is not our normal way of doing things, but we would be putting in place, by exception, a consequential action.

I do not find that easy but, given the volume of petitions that we have to consider, we have to be satisfied that there is a real prospect of advancing matters. We have other petitions that Rhoda Grant is concerned with and for which there might be greater prospects.

The circumstances are appalling, but I thank Derek Noble for bringing the petitions before us. Obviously, we will see whether anything at all comes from our action, but, regrettably, I feel that that is the position that we are in.

Do members agree to take that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

That seems very sensible and consistent with the suggestions that have been made by the petitioners. Are committee members content to keep the petition open and proceed with it on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, we thank the petitioner, and we will pursue the aims of the petition accordingly.