Seòmar agus comataidhean

I should probably declare an interest, in that I am the convener of the cross-party group on the wood panel industry, which tends to consider the interests of the 25,000 people who are employed in sawmills and the panel products sector and related sectors and who are a key part of the economy. They rely on the continued supply over decades of species such as Sitka spruce, which are essential for what they do and without which they would not be in Scotland.

I have just been checking the long history of the petition, and I could not see any contribution from anyone on—I do not want to say “the other side”, because it is not a case of sides; everybody wants to see a combination of productive and native species, and everybody values both. There must be a balance. However, we have not heard from the commercial side or from the panel products or sawmill sectors. Confor should be given a chance to be heard. Before we consider whether it is appropriate to have a debate, I would prefer to hear what Confor has to say. It has the right to be heard that belongs to everybody.

The other point that I would make—and I do not say this every day—is that I have some sympathy with the Scottish Government in this instance. I do not expect the Government to come along and repair my gas boiler or a broken roof on my house, and most of the ancient woodlands do not belong to the Government but to private landowners. Therefore, from a legal point of view at any rate, the obligation is not on the Scottish Government. Yes, there is a societal interest, as Ms Baillie has rightly highlighted. However, we do not want taxpayers to pay for things that owners should be doing as part of the silvicultural handling of their property.

I thought that I should mention that, just for the sake of balance. I am not against a debate or, in any way, against the eloquent arguments that have been made, but we need to hear from both sides.

But we seem to have strayed into an argument of them against us, and of ancient woodlands versus introduced or commercial species. That is a difficult and sensitive argument that needs to be handled with sensitivity. My point is that we need to hear from both sides—that is all.

I agree with all that. I also recognise the sentiments that were expressed by Mr Smyth and Mr Cole-Hamilton, and I entirely agree with everything that they said.

At the meeting where we heard from the current Deputy First Minister, I felt that the arguments that were presented were insupportable, unjustifiable, inexcusable and quite impossible to defend on any basis, frankly. I have seen the petitioner’s written submission of 10 April, some of which has been alluded to, and I want to make two additional suggestions, which at this point are contingent. In other words, we might not require to resort to them, but we should, if necessary.

First, I think that your suggestion, convener, that we raise with John Swinney the apparent contradiction between the positions adopted by the current and the previous Deputy First Ministers is excellent. However, at the end of the day, where those who are second-in-command adopt two apparently different positions, what do you do? You go to the boss and say, “Look, your two deputies cannae agree with each other.” Okay, one was the previous deputy and not the current one, but he was still the Deputy First Minister of Scotland. We should indicate that we might be minded to seek evidence from the First Minister, if we cannot get justice for the people who are here today and those who cannot be with us.

In addition, it would be helpful to signal that, if all of those things prove to be ineffective, we would not be doing our job if we did not go back to the floor of our Parliament and debate the issue there.

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?

My apologies, convener.

We are indebted to Professor Diane McAdie for her submission of 11 March 2024. She stated in that submission:

“The purpose of redress for historic institutional child abuse should be to benefit survivors. Currently, the eligibility guidelines specifically exclude survivors of short-term residential school abuse. This is unjust”.

Surely that is correct, and surely your statement today perpetrates a manifest injustice, Deputy First Minister.

I hear what you say, Deputy First Minister, but, with respect, it does not really answer the question that I asked. Surely it is unjust to deny people who have been subject to abuse, albeit for a shorter period, redress and compensation. I am just asking you to give a direct answer on a matter of principle, please. Surely denying that is unjust. It is a manifest and patent injustice. Surely that is indisputable.

I do not think that I was a member of that committee at that time.