Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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?

Thank you very much.