Seòmar agus comataidhean

People should neither be denied the benefits to which they are entitled, nor should their entitlement to receive them be from a variable date depending on where they happen to live. I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that the petitioner articulates.

Are we agreed on how to progress the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. In response to the first point, I think that the cabinet secretary makes clear that—whether or not the committee might wish it otherwise—there is no mandatory curriculum in Scotland, so there can be no direction from the Government in that regard.

You allude to deaths that have taken place among young children as a result of not being able to swim. To be honest with you, I am not aware of the incidence of that, which is, in itself, a difficult matter to address.

Colleagues, we have heard from Mr Choudhury and we have also finally had this response from the Scottish Government. On reflection, what do colleagues think we should do?

PE1977, which was lodged by Helen Duncan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law and update the national guidance for child protection to require social services to inform biological fathers of concerns about their children.

Helen Duncan tells us in her submission that social services are not required to inform a child’s biological father when concerns have been raised about the welfare of their child. She highlights her family’s experience of finding out about child welfare concerns months after social work had become involved in the case. In researching the issue more broadly, Helen has become aware of situations in which fathers have not been informed of child welfare concerns and they have had to fight to have their child released from foster care.

Responding to the petition, the Minister for Children and Young People refers to the “National Child Protection Guidance in Scotland 2021” and its emphasis on listening to children and the participation of and support for families. She also refers to multi-agency partnership being one of the core elements of child protection processes, and indicates that, when child protection measures are required, social work should include fathers when appropriate and when they have active involvement in the child’s life.

Recognising that each set of circumstances is different and would require professional assessment before information is shared, the minister notes that introducing an automatic notification for biological fathers could place significant risks on children and adults—for example, in cases of domestic abuse, or where the child has requested that their father is not made aware.

The petition is interesting, and raises conflicting emotions and potential consequences. Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we should proceed?

Our next petition, PE1859, was lodged by Barry Blyther, who is in the public gallery this morning. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.

Members will recall the evidence sessions that we had in December last year with the petitioner, the Minister for Environment and Land Reform and NatureScot. I should also include Stanley, the eagle, in that, because we put questions to Stanley directly. [Laughter.] We heard about a number of issues in relation to the petition, and there are some outstanding issues and questions for us to consider, all of which have been summarised in our papers.

You are looking at me as if I ought to be an authority on these matters. Although Mr Ewing and I might be at the older end of the lifespans that are represented on the committee, I must say that I am not an expert on that subject. No doubt others might be able to tell us more.

No, it is helpful to tease this out.

The confirmation of the position in NHS Grampian was disappointing, I have to say; in progressing the petition, we should give proper emphasis to that.

On which analogy, I will ask whether members are content with the action that has been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

It would be helpful to draft a letter that we could consider before we send it off. I suggest that we ask the clerks to produce a draft letter.

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?