Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are we content to proceed on that basis? Unlike the previous petition, which we will hold open to see whether what was promised occurs, in view of the information that we have received, I propose that we close the petition. Does the committee agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2071, lodged by Dr Sally Witcher, is on taking action to protect people from airborne infections in health and social care settings. Jackie Baillie has endured our proceedings since her earlier contribution, to stay with us and contribute to our discussion of this petition, too.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve air quality in health and social care settings through addressing ventilation, air filtration and sterilisation; to reintroduce the routine wearing of masks, particularly respiratory masks, in those settings; to reintroduce routine Covid testing; to ensure that staff manuals fully cover preventing airborne infection; to support ill staff to stay at home; and to provide public health information on the use of respiratory masks and high-efficiency particulate air—HEPA—filtration against airborne infections.

The Scottish Parliament information centre’s briefing states that the highest-risk list ended on 31 May 2022, and that the guidance on extended use of face masks and coverings across health and social care settings was withdrawn on 16 May 2023.

The Scottish Government’s submission explains that a robust process is in place for creating, updating, and removing Covid-19 guidance and that the information sources and decisions remain under continual review. Routine testing has now been paused, with the exception of such testing pre-discharge from hospitals to care homes and hospices.

On staff manuals, the Government explains that it has no ownership or control over the content of the “National Infection Prevention and Control Manual”. It also notes that new guidance on ventilation for non-clinical workplaces was published in October 2022, which included refreshed advice on measures to improve ventilation for individuals and workplaces, as well as new guidance detailing the most appropriate use of air-cleaning technologies.

The petitioner has provided two written submissions, which are available to members in their meeting papers. She emphasises her concerns about the on-going risks of Covid-19 at a national level. She notes that the Public Health Scotland dashboard for acute hospital admissions revealed a higher rate over the winter just past than that when the mask guidance was withdrawn.

The petitioner highlights that an estimated one in 10 infections results in long Covid, and that care workers are disproportionately affected. She points out that NHS England has guidance on the use of HEPA filters and sterilisation in hospitals, whereas Scotland focuses on ventilation. On face masks, she highlights the Royal College of Nursing’s support for reinstating mask wearing and that individual person-centred clinical risk assessment for respiratory protective equipment does not work when there is a risk for everyone in the environment. On public awareness, the petitioner asks why nothing has been done to share important information with the public about the on-going risks of Covid-19.

The Care Inspectorate has written to draw attention to its updated guidance, which makes it clear that care homes must not rely on mechanical ventilation only and must have the ability for fresh air to be provided. In response, the petitioner asks what the Care Inspectorate would consider to be adequate and suitable ventilation and how that is to be addressed and enforced.

The issues raised in the petition are similar to those on which we took evidence in respect of an earlier petition that was subsequently closed, on which we heard from long-term Covid sufferers on sustained issues arising from the former pandemic.

Before I ask members how we might proceed on the petition, I invite Jackie Baillie to address us again.

PE2072, lodged by Peter Barlow, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to offer Covid-19 vaccine boosters to teachers and school staff. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition explains that its decision making throughout all Covid-19 vaccination programmes—as with all other vaccination programmes, I think—has been guided by the independent expert clinical advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The submission states that the JCVI did not advise that teachers and school staff should have been offered a winter vaccine and that the Scottish Government had no plans to make Covid-19 vaccination available to groups that are not covered by JCVI advice. A statement on vaccinations from JCVI in February did not advise vaccination for teachers and school staff.

The petitioner’s submission states that he believes the JCVI advice to be inadequate in preventing transmission in schools, and he questioned the basis for the Scottish Government relying so heavily on JCVI advice. The petitioner shares a tweet in his submission that sums up his view that that approach from the Scottish Government is “not good enough”.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

In the light of the advice that we have received and of the Scottish Government’s clear intention, are members content to accept Mr Golden’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

We come to our final new petition this morning. PE2073, lodged by Robert Macdonald, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require the police and court services to check that address information is up to date when issuing a court summons and to allow those being summoned the chance to receive a summons if their address has changed rather than the current system of simply proceeding to issue an arrest warrant.

The petition was prompted by the arrest of a paramedic who had missed a court date after the summons was sent to an old address. The petitioner insisted that, as the police were able to obtain the correct address for the individual, the court should have been able to issue the summons to the correct address. In essence, I think, the police were able to get the correct address to arrest the individual, but they were not able to get the correct address to issue the summons to.

The SPICe briefing outlines provisions in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, including provisions for granting a warrant to apprehend the accused if it is proved to the court that the accused received the citation or has knowledge of its contents.

The Scottish Government has responded that the petition relates to an area in which it has no policy position or role, and that it is an operational matter for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland.

We have also received a submission from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which adds further detail to the SPICe briefing on the processes and circumstances for seeking warrants for summary court proceedings. It notes that prosecutors should only seek initiating warrants where it is in the public interest to do so, for example, because there is information the accused is avoiding citation. It also notes that, where information is provided that the accused is no longer at their address, and their whereabouts are unknown, there is a mechanism for the outstanding warrant to be reviewed by a prosecutor who will, taking into account the prospects of tracing the accused and the nature of the offence, consider whether there is a public interest in pursuing the prosecution.

Do members have any suggestions for action? I am minded to keep the petition open at the moment. It struck me that there was a lack of basic shared communication that could have resolved the matter. Might we write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and Police Scotland to seek their views on the issues that have been raised by the petition—in particular, in the case that the petitioner raises, to ask how Police Scotland was able to identify where the individual was in order to perform an arrest, but it was not possible for that information to be made available when it came to sending the summons? Does that seem reasonable?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE1975, which is on reforming the law relating to strategic lawsuits against public participation, which are sometimes, or probably more commonly, referred to as SLAPPs. The petition, which was lodged by Roger Mullin, 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 on 4 October last year. At that time, we agreed to take evidence from stakeholders and, later, from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. I am pleased to welcome as our witnesses the petitioner, Roger Mullin, who will address the meeting shortly; Justin Borg-Barthet, who is the convener of the anti-SLAPP research hub; Graeme Johnston, a member of the Scotland anti-SLAPP sub-working group of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition; and Ahsan Mustafa, a member of the Law Society of Scotland’s civil justice committee.

Good morning to you all, and welcome to our proceedings. As we get into this, if you wish to come in on any of the questions that colleagues ask, please indicate to me. When colleagues are speaking, they will take note that you are seeking to come in. We will clarify who is coming in, so that those who are noting for the Official Report understand who is contributing at any given point. Rather than just speaking extemporaneously, please make sure that you are introduced through the chair.

We have received a written submission from Michelle Thomson MSP, who is unable to attend the meeting. The submission reiterates her support for the petition and notes that the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill passed its second reading in the United Kingdom Parliament in February. She argues that Scotland has fallen behind other jurisdictions and that we risk becoming a destination of choice for SLAPP action, which may very well form some of the discussion that we are going to have.

I would be grateful if Roger Mullin would say a few words by way of introduction.

Thank you, Mr Mullin.

I see that Mr Ewing has arrived. You have not missed anything, Mr Ewing. We have just heard the introduction to our evidence session on the petition regarding SLAPPs. I know that you are particularly concerned about that and will wish to come in with questions shortly.

Is a governmental position of taking a reactive rather than a proactive approach to that possibility not a reasonable one?

I hear what you say there. Might not the Government argue that, in an otherwise congested legislative environment, to act and to prioritise that when other matters need to be progressed might not be wise in terms of its use of resource and time?

It is good to have that on the record.