 Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee of 2024. Can I just begin by thanking my deputy convener, David Torrance, for convening the last meeting of the committee, which was quite a packed agenda of engagement and evidence-taking, so I'm very grateful to him. Our first item this morning is just a customary item to agree to take business in private, which is items 4 and 5, which relates to our being able to consider the evidence that we're hearing this morning. Our colleagues agreed. We are expecting Fergus Ewing to join us, and he will be with us shortly, so there's no apology there. That leads us into agenda item 2, which is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of these continued petitions is petition number 1975, which is to reform the law relating strategic lawsuits against public petition, sometimes referred to as SLAPS, or probably more commonly referred to as SLAPS, and that's been lodged by Roger Mullum. The petition 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 this petition on 4 October last year, and at that time we agreed to take evidence from stakeholders and later from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. I'm pleased this morning to welcome, as our witnesses, the petitioner, Roger Mullum, who will be addressing the meeting shortly, Justin Borsh Barthet, who is the convener of the Anti-Slap Research Hub, Graham Johnston, a member of the Scotland Anti-Slap Sub-Working Group from the UK Anti-Slap Coalition, and Asan Mustafa, who is a member of the Civil Justice Committee from the Law Society of Scotland. Good morning and welcome to all of you to our proceedings this morning. As we get into all of this, if you just want to indicate to me if you wish to come in in relation to any of the questions that any colleague is asking please do, or when they're speaking they'll take note as well that you're seeking to come in. But we just probably will clarify that it is you who has come in so that those who are noting the official record understand which of you it is that has been contributing in any given point, rather than just speaking extemporarily. So if you could make sure you're introduced through the chair. We've received a written submission from Michelle Thompson MSP, who's unable to attend the meeting this morning, and the submission reiterates her support for the petition and notes that the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill passed its second reading in the UK Parliament in February, and she argues that Scotland has fallen behind other jurisdictions and that we risk becoming a destination of choice for slap action, which I think may very well form some of the discussion that we're going to have just now, and on that point I'd be very grateful if Mr Mullan, Roger Mullan would now say a few words by way of introduction. Thank you very much Mr Convener, and first of all I'd like to thank all of the committee for the opportunity to discuss the need for anti-slap legislation in Scotland. When I was a member of Parliament, I became increasingly aware of the most malign people, including oligarchs, were abusing the law to oppress and silence investigative journalists and authors in particular, but also academics and anti-corruption campaigners. Such abuse of the legal system is aimed at preventing the publishing of material that is in the public interest. The growth of expensive legal threats is an attack on free speech and some basic human rights. Scotland is in danger of becoming a jurisdiction of choice unless urgent action is taken. The abuse is exercised through the commencement or threat of civil lawsuits using whatever laws seem convenient, including privacy and data protection laws, and in whatever jurisdiction suits. The abusers buy the expensive services of compliant legal firms and so-called reputational management firms and seek to make any defence as expensive as possible in both financial and psychological terms for those they wish to harass. That is why the majority of cases never come to court as the costs of defence prove too great and the abuser wins. Other countries in Europe and the UK are now addressing the problem with anti-slap legislation. I therefore appeal to the committee to protect freedom of speech by supporting the case for such legislation here in Scotland. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, Mr Mullan. I just say to Mr Ewing that you have not missed anything. We have just heard the introduction to our evidence session in relation to the petition regarding slaps, which I know that you are particularly concerned with and will wish to come in with questions shortly. Mr Mullan, thank you for that. We have a whole series of areas that we will explore and in more detail maybe than my first question just allows, but I just wanted to understand because I think that the committee were very engaged with the petition when we saw it. We have obviously therefore taken the unusual step of convening this evidence session, which we do not do in relation to every petition. We have also had briefing from the Parliament's independent research unit, SPICE. I guess that the thing that struck me reading that is not the principle of the argument that you are making, but whether or not in practice Scotland's legal system and its different genetic code in the way in which it has been established means that in practice there is less likely to be the type of threat that you potentially envisage overwhelming our system and that therefore a reactive rather than a proactive government approach to this in the light of evidence would be an arguable way to go. I just wanted to start off by understanding that before we go into the more detailed aspect of your petition to you and any of your other colleagues. Yes, I will allow my colleagues around here who are legal experts to answer some of the detail associated with that. If I could answer it from a more political perspective initially, why do I think that it is likely that we will become a forum of choice because it has happened before to Scotland? When I was a member of Parliament I tried to run a campaign for the reform of a thing called Scottish Limited Partnerships, which were used as the front for a huge amount of corruption by international players, including Russian oligarchs, people from Baltic states, Israel, America and the like. Why did that come about? Scottish Limited Partnerships were formed in 1905, thanks to Asquith, but they were found by people internationally around the time of the financial crash in 2008 as the ideal vehicle to hide their ill-gotten gains. Some of you may be aware of what became known as the Russian Laundromat, a huge multi-billion-pound fraud, effectively on the people of Russia. That was fronted by about a dozen or so Scottish Limited Partnerships. We already have experience of people able to look around for jurisdictions of choice that will be easiest for them to pursue their malign interests. I think that we want to reflect on that. This is very much a global community today, and different jurisdictions will know only too well what is happening by way of laws being put in place elsewhere in the UK, throughout Europe and elsewhere. Where will be the softest touch as things stand at the moment? It is going to be Scotland. Is perhaps a Government position of taking a reactive rather than a proactive approach to that possibility not a reasonable one? I do not think so. The reason I do not think so is because what that would mean is that you are allowing people to exercise these threats first before you start to respond. I think that that would be a completely unfortunate position to take and certainly not in the interests of the innocents. I hear what you say there, too. Might they not argue that, in an otherwise congested legislative environment, that to act and to prioritise that when other matters need to be progressed might not be wise in terms of their use of resource and time? Well, I do not know what their arguments are going to be, but I cannot think in anything that is more important than protecting the good name of Scotland internationally and protecting the people of Scotland from those types of threats. Good to have that in the record. Yes, Mr Johnston, good morning. If I can just add a little bit of background. I used to work as a litigation solicitor in one of the big international firms, and I did a lot of cross-border type litigation, not about defamation but about all sorts of things. The reality of the way people look at these things is when you have options for bringing actions against people, you do pros and cons, you have a table, you have a list and as particular jurisdictions become tighter on a particular topic, it is natural enough that the ones that are not rise to the top of the table as it were. The issue that you foreseeably will get is that now that the EU and England and Wales seem likely to tighten this thing up, in a way the reactive move is actually to move relatively quickly because that is still quite reactive actually, and not to wait for several years until you have actually got a great influx of litigation here, quite apart from the harm that could be done to Rodger's point. You also may get the situation that it's harder to fix later, because as people start doing more of this, lawyers get attached, you'll have a society of Scottish media lawyers formed, no doubt, and you'll have a harder problem, whereas if you nip it in the bud, that would be easier. As if to suggest our legal profession is always one with an eye to a chance, is my conclusion for that. I wouldn't wish to imply that. Any of the... Mr Borch Bartlett. Thank you. In addition to the points which have already been made, I think there's a couple of things we need to consider. First of all, the comparison which is made, I think, is a little unfortunate in that we constantly look to what's going on in England and say, oh, we're not as bad, or they are the slap hub and, you know, it's a fringe issue in Scotland. The better question, I think, is not what is different about Scotland when compared to England and Wales, but what is unique about Scotland when compared to every other legal system in Europe. And I would suggest that the answer to that in this specific respect is nothing. So the onus should shift, and it should be to show that Scotland is immune to problems, which every other legal system is not immune to, and I cannot see how it could be. I'd also suggest that we perhaps note that the situation isn't one of a prospective problem if Scotland became isolated as the only jurisdiction without anti-slap laws, but a current problem, which we don't perhaps see. And the reason we don't see it is because most anti-slap practice never makes it to court. And we know from our discussions with media lawyers on the side of the media that even in Scotland stories are changed or stories are not published because of threats of lawsuits. So currently, we do not know things which we should know. Things are not reported. Things gone reported, which should be reported. And as to the point about legislative environment, Roger obviously spoke to an important political point, which is one for politicians. There is, however, a legal point as well, which is that what is being addressed here is the basis of a functioning legal system. A system without free press is a system without a fully functioning rule of law, and it is incumbent on legislators to make sure that the rule of law is advanced in every legal system. Thank you. Mr Moustapha, is there anything that you would like to say? Yes, thank you. Thank you, convener. The law society believes that a justice system, that maintains the rule of law and ensures public confidence, should not tolerate slaps just as it should not tolerate vexatious litigation or abuse of the legal process generally. The law society appreciates the concerns which have been expressed by the petitioner. Thank you very much. I think that that is actually at the heart of the petition here. Just to follow up, Mr Borges Barthet, I think that you alluded to this and I just want to understand the extent to which this is a problem about legal threats rather than about court action. Is that where the centre of gravity is in this? Court action is the tip of the iceberg with slaps. The core problem is the credibility of a threat. If somebody were to threaten me with a lawsuit that was going to cost me several thousand pounds, I would probably give very serious thought, no matter how right I thought I was, to not appear in court. Now, the income of a professor is a matter of public record. It is more than minimum wage. It is more than a freelance journalist getting started investigating things which we should know would earn. Most people on a normal income would be very cautious about engaging in litigation about anything. We have normalised the threat of litigation in relation to a basic democratic function, which is public discussion and public exposition of facts in the public interest. The effect of that is that things disappear. They are published or published in a sterilised form. That, of course, has significant effects on governance because we do not know what our local authorities are doing. We do not necessarily know what our Governments and politicians are doing and we do not know what businesses which affect our lives to an equal extent very often are doing. We do not know the extent of it. We cannot quantify it, but what we do know from data that is currently being collected from preliminary data, which my colleague Francesca Farrington is collecting, is that all journalists receive these threats. We can surmise that journalists respond to those threats by often limiting what they publish. Although we cannot talk about live cases, colleagues who were members of the Scottish Parliament in the last session will remember the case of our former colleague Andy Wightman, who was very much involved and affected by that initiative. My final question is about journalists and campaigners. Are those the types of legal claim that are most commonly associated with SLAPs? Is that the thing that they are most generally used to or deployed in respect of? The ones that I am most familiar with would be, first of all, the investigative community of journalists. It also involves people who might be campaigners, and it involves, on occasions, academics, where the intention is to stop them from conducting or publishing research findings. I think that journalists are the largest community so far as I am aware that they are affected by this, but they are not alone. Mr Johnston? In addition to what Roger said, another angle is that there are an increasing number of private individuals who get threatened or sued, for example, leaving a bad review for a service. There have been some rather obnoxious cases about that for reporting on assaults that they suffered from ex-partners and so on. There are other applications, but I was just trying to understand where the centre of gravity was in relation to that. David Torrance? Thank you, convener. Good morning to witnesses. Looking at other legal systems across the UK, does action taking in England and Wales go far enough to adequately protect journalists and campaigners? From my perspective, I doubt if it does at the moment, but I would rather defer to people who are legally trained to give a more detailed response. The main issue with the bill before the Westminster Parliament at the moment is that it has a subjective standard and intention to harass, for example. The criticism of that is that it does not go further than existing abuse of process law. There is a proposed amendment to create an objective test for things that can be reasonably understood as having a harassing intent or impact, and we'll have to wait and see how that goes. There's a secondary issue about the definition of public interest on the London Bill at the moment. These are the main points. There are other enhancements that one could make. For example, if you look at the anti-slap model law that the UK coalition put together, there are other aspects on that as well. Those are the two big life issues in Westminster at the moment. Does the Council of Europe initiative put pressure on the Scottish Government to do more on that issue? A very short answer, yes. Justin, in particular, is aware of what has been happening in the European front, so he might want to expand a little in my yes. I'm not sure it's necessary to expand a huge amount on your yes. To be clear, I was involved with the European Union lawmaking process rather than the Council of Europe, but essentially the answer is yes, and the reason for that is that there is a model recommendation which should be adopted by all legal systems in the Council of Europe. That is not binding, but it is something which should be done, which the Council of Europe takes the view, which would constitute a sound standard for the protection of fundamental rights within Europe. Obviously, with that, we need to see what's also going on in the European Union, where just yesterday the anti-slap directive was published and must be adopted within two years by the 27 Member States of the European Union. So, there is significant pressure there in that 27 States will certainly adopt anti-slap legislation. We expect further anti-slap legislation in England and Wales, and then there is this recommendation applicable to the rest of the Council of Europe States as well, and the expectation is that there will be some movement there as well. For example, in Switzerland, there is significant pressure being brought to bear as well. In a word, yes. Thank you for that. In draft and anti-slap legislation, what is the key factors in doing it that will make it successful? One key factor is that it focuses on process abuse rather than particular substantive types of claim. So, for example, in England in 2013, there was a statute passed to restrict law of defamation, in effect, and there's a similar statute in Scotland in 2021. The history in England hasn't been particularly effective in getting cases kicked out early, partly because the standards are very fact sensitive, serious harm, for instance, usually has to go to trial, secondly because people have become very imaginative in using all sorts of causes of action, privacy, data protection, trespass, confidentiality, copyright, you name it. So, it has to focus on process rather than particular substantive causes of action as a good start, and then everything really turns on the definition, which there are examples in the various things that I want to elaborate on, but that's the starting point. I was interested in your comments around the Council of Europe initiative, because clearly the Scottish Government is committed to aligning with EU law, and therefore in theory there's no need for this petition in the sense that the Scottish Government should align with EU law on that front. I just wonder what options are open to the Scottish Government in terms of intervening on this. Clearly there's a legislative route, but I wonder about non-legislative routes such as via solicitor regulation, for example. Would that seek to assuage the requirements of the petition? I'm happy to start. In a word, no, it would not be sufficient, but you do raise an important point in that. In addition to legislative intervention, a sound response to SLAPs would include several flanking measures. That would include education, both of the legal profession and of people engaging in public participation. It would include support for SLAP targets. It would include probably changes to legal aid. Additional measures ensure that we're not only dealing with what happens in court, but the effects of what happens in court and the issues that precede anything making its way to court. But legislation is needed because you can't do the things to which Graham referred without Parliament's say-so. If I could add, of course, one thing that would be very helpful, I think, is that the law society was to issue particular advice to law firms in Scotland and the things that they should look out for. That would be another additional mechanism, but it would be additional to the need for proper legislation. I would just like to expand on what Mr Mullin has said in relation to England and Wales, that the SRE, the Solicitor's Regulation Authority, has issued a warning to solicitors regarding raising any litigation that can be viewed as SLAPs. However, I would like to make reference to the Solicitor's Code of Conduct in Scotland to act at all times with trust and personal integrity. The Solicitor is also required to refuse proper instruction by a client. This is in rule B15. The other thing that I would like to follow on from Mr Borg Parthet regarding legal aid, is that there is no legal aid available in defamation cases in Scotland. Respondent, as in receipt of legal aid, has legal expenses will be covered. The Solicitor's Code of Conduct can create another level of protection. How are SLAPs identified and what differences are there between SLAPs and the legitimate cases? In order to identify a SLAP, the first thing you need to do is to establish that the respondent is engaging in public participation. It is not about publication, it is about all forms of public participation. Once you have established that, you need to look at the claimant's behaviour and consider whether the claim is either unfounded in whole or in part or whether there are elements of abuse other than simply the claim being unfounded. There are different definitions in different legal systems, but the standard in the Council of Europe recommendation, which I would suggest is the absolute minimum that Scotland should be aiming for, includes consideration of different types of abuse, such as exaggerated claims. There might be £10,000 worth of damage in claiming several millions or engaging in multiple claims when this could all be consolidated in a manner that would be convenient and efficient for the respondent and for the court. It is persisting in litigation when there is the possibility of resolution outside court and so on and so forth. I will not take you through the whole list, but we begin by looking at whether there is an act of public participation. If there is, we look at whether the claimant's behaviour reveals any elements of abuse. How prevalent are slaps in Scotland and what damage has been done? I am aware of a case that has never and probably will never reach the public because the people who were going to publish it received such strong threats that they decided that they did not feel that they were able to carry the risk. There are examples that I am familiar with. I think that this was first made at the outset of this hearing by Justin. There are examples of things that were unaware of because they never reached the public arena. However, there are cases that do reach the public arena and from different areas. One of the things that concerned myself, and this was long before, became for a short time in my life a member of Parliament, I used to chair the Research Ethics Committee at the University of Stirling in the early 2000s. Some of you may remember that the University of Stirling used to have a research group in one of its institutes and researched into tobacco abuse and the effect on young children of smoking or of advertising and the like. Indeed, some of their research, I think, is correct to say that we will have informed this Parliament in the past as the macro legislation was pursued. The University of Stirling was threatened legally by a major tobacco company who spent a long time, if memory serves me correctly, two or three years pursuing the University of Stirling, wanting access to their original information, including the details of interviews with 16, 17, 18 and 19-year-olds. They wanted to take everything and they wanted to quell, in my view, quell and silence that research from ever being made public. Now, it was unsuccessful, but we do have cases. That was a case beyond the realm of investigative journalism, of course, but there are cases of individuals, an individual campaigning lady in Scotland who was campaigning on behalf of people who were subject to major fraud and was threatened. We know that there are cases in Scotland of various types. The concern that I would have, and I think that many people have, is that there are those cases that we know about, but the strong suspicion is that there are many more cases that we do not know about, and that something needs to be done to protect the interests of public participation in Scotland. Is it possible for non-governmental legal intervention to tackle slaps? What sort of thing do you have in mind? Well, non-governmental, so it's like the example just given. Yeah, so it's sort of civil society type things. There are various support, for example, that can be provided to journalists and so on, and coming back to the question about legal regulators, for example, they can do things. It's a complex problem and there's no single magic solution to it, but the heart of the problem, in a way, is what the law permits, because everything else really refers to that. So, there are many things that can be done, but the legal one is the central one, I would say. Just briefly, if you'd like to bring in Mr Ewing. Yeah, of course, sorry. Yes, there is room for non-governmental intervention, but ultimately non-governmental intervention cannot shift costs and proceedings, cannot require the claimant to provide security for costs, cannot require the claimants to pay damages for having brought a slap and so on and so forth, so there is only so much that can be done by anything other than a Parliament. Thank you, convener. Mr Ewing. Thank you, convener. 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, which bears, I think, a certain similarity to the arguments that they're in. Indeed. I wanted to focus on some practicalities, and what was helped by Mr Moustaphas' evidence that there is no legal aid in Scotland for someone defending a defamation action. So, that's very important indeed. The two responses that the Scottish Government has made to this petition were made in October 22 and on 20 March 2023. In each case, their main argument for doing nothing is that defamation and malicious libel, no malicious bill, provide protection and additional tests. That's true in the sense of certain defences, which is a good thing. However, the point that I want to make is that in order to defend an action, you need to be able to pay for it. If somebody takes you to the court of session, then it's completely beyond the means, even of someone who's quite well off. I know of one particular case where a court of session action costs an individual £350,000. That's probably by no means unusual. The Minister for Community Safety in the reply of 20 March 2023 said, a solicitor said that it costs only £25,000 to pursue a defamation action share of court. Who's got £25,000 to blow legal fees at this time of austerity? I just wanted to put that in the record because it seems to me an utterly hopeless defence so hopeless. I'm surprised that the Scottish Government actually put it forward. Therefore, we're talking really of David V. Goliath, but David was no sling or no nothing and Goliath with nuclear weapons. Having said that scene... If you were a witness or if you were asking questions of the witnesses, Mr Ewing. I thought it would be useful just to be serious to refer to the Government's response because what they said in response to this is 19 months on. Would it not be just a completely impossible task for an ordinary individual threatened with a legal action to defend it? As Mr Bartlett said, quite rightly, most individuals would just fold even if they think they are absolutely innocent of any charge and have a perfect defence against it. Well, I'm not going to assume any... If you disagree with Mr Ewing, so I wonder if you might just expand slightly on anything that he said that you think would help the committee. Yes, if I could add to that, the thing that struck me as being rather narrow in the view of the Government, if I put it like that, was the only mentioned defamation. There was no slaps can be applied using different types of legal routes, privacy law, data protection and the like. That's why someone like myself would like to see some more general anti-slap measures being considered because it's open to abusers to choose different legal routes, and they often do. There's an excellent paper that has just been published by Stephen Bogg and Bobby Rinsie from the University of Glasgow, which addresses this specific point, and essentially what they say is that the Defamation and Militias Publications Act doesn't and couldn't address the slap problem fully. Now, while that legislation is welcome and that it improves the environment for freedom of expression, it only does so in respect of a particular type of claim, and as Graham explained earlier, slaps couldn't come in any form, but even so the tests including the serious harm test come far later in the process, at which point several thousand pounds which people don't have have already been spent, so it doesn't and it couldn't address the problem in and of itself, which isn't to say it isn't a useful law in the general scheme of the protection of freedom of expression, but by itself it is insufficient. Okay, I wanted to turn to something else, which is having established that the Government's main defence is just pretty hopeless, frankly, as far as I can see. Moving on from that, this petition is 19 months old, and in the course of that 19 months when the Scottish Government have been busily doing nothing, the UK Government has passed an act called the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, the 23 act, which enables slaps to be struck out, and they're announcing support for a private members bill, the strategic litigation against public participation bill, and meanwhile I'm told that the European Parliament has recently agreed a directive dealing with slaps, so I haven't studied the details of these, but I wonder if I could ask witnesses, you know, does this mean that both in England and Wales and the EU as a whole covers most of mainland Europe that is likely to be used as a jurisdiction of choice? There will very shortly be effective legislation, and therefore what was a danger working on the horizon 19 months ago is now a danger that's very much coming close to the harbour of Scotland and close to our country, and therefore if it was necessary to do something 19 months ago, is it not far more urgent now to do something rather than continue to do nothing at all now? My petition was only published by this committee 19 months ago, I started working on preparing it months before that, so let us say roughly two years ago I was getting increasingly concerned about the moves in other jurisdictions, and there were no apparent moves in Scotland, and before I could issue a petition I had to quite properly demonstrate I had approached the government and sought information and was told they had no plans to review matters in relation to that, so this is not something that's suddenly arisen that they have been unaware of, they've been aware of what I would say is a need to protect Scotland for a considerable amount of time. I hope, when I set out, my hope was that by raising a petition it would encourage a focus on the issue so that we could gather support for proper reform in Scotland, and that's why I said at the outset, Mr Ewing, of my opening remarks why I genuinely thank the committee for taking this on board and allowing this to progress, and this session, from my point of view, is a very important one in raising the issue publicly but also in raising the issue amongst parliamentarians. Surely it is time for action. Just one final question, let's assume that the Scottish Government who said that they weren't ruling it out to be fair to them in the first submission were to say, right, we're going to solve this problem. Would they be able to do so by an LCM or something close to an LCM? In other words, can they rely on, borrow, plagiarise, copy the approach taken down south, although of course it will have to be adapted to Scottish circumstances? In other words, is it a fairly simple, perhaps not simple, but a reasonably straightforward task because the work has already been done by others which can largely, speaking, be translated into Scots law? Would that be fair? I would say that it's fair, and not only the UK legislation but also there's now the European materials as well. There's plenty of examples that have been thoroughly debated and discussed. Thank you very much. Okay, that was Mr Johnston responding to Mr Ewing. Thank you very much. Just before I ask if there's anything further you'd like to offer, I'm correct, I think just following on from the exchange of Mr Ewing. There has been no further contact with the Scottish Government beyond the two references that have been made. So, in fact, when we meet the minister and have the opportunity to put these issues to the minister, it's still, as far as we are publicly aware, the Government's position that either they've not got any plans to do something or that it's something that is very much sort of on the backburners. That's still where you see it in terms of their perception. Well, I've not had any communication. You've had nothing to the contrary to that. So, the only thing I know as their official position is what has been recorded. Before we come to our conclusions, is there anything further that it would be useful for us to understand or you would wish to add to the consideration that we've just had? Well, I personally just want to thank the committee again. I think you've given us a very fair hearing. I can't ask for any more. I simply encourage you to be on the right side of this very important argument. We have a reputation for being tenacious when it comes to pursuing ministers in relation to business. I always say that our mandate comes not from any party political manifesto but from the petitioner on whose behalf we are acting when we pursue the issues when we are able to discuss them with ministers. Anybody else anything they want to say or Mr Johnson? I've not been here before and I wasn't quite sure what to expect and I'm just very grateful for the very engaged discussion really. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your time and I'll now suspend briefly. Members are content that we consider this evidence later. Thank you very much. We're back and so we now continue with petitions and in particular petition number 1812 to protect Scotland's remaining ancient native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors, a petition of long-standing with which the committee have been engaged for quite some time, lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker on behalf of Help Trees Help Us. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation to giving Scotland's remaining fragments of ancient native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection before COP26. You'll understand therefore is a petition of some standing UN climate change conference of the parties in Glasgow in November 2021 and the ask of this petition demonstrates how long it actually has been in progress and how many different parties including ministers we've heard from along the way. That included of course a new, a fresh response from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, which indicates that while the Scottish Government officials are progressing plans for a new register of ancient woodland, that will be a significant and long-term undertaking. Following our own site visit, I'm not even sure which members of the committee were, is it just David Torrance and I, who have survived from the walking tour of the ancient woodlands that we undertook at an earlier time, so it is certainly of long standing. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs also indicates that the Scottish Government, Scottish Forestry and Nature Scotland are in agreement that protections in place for ancient woodlands against tree felling are adequate, with protections having been further strengthened by policies included in the fourth national planning framework, MPF4. In preparation for the introduction of the nature environment bill, which we expect will be forthcoming during the current Parliament, the Scottish Government ran a consultation on aspects of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy and proposed natural environment bill between 7 September and 14 December last year. We've also received three submissions from the petitioners who continue to share research on the impact of invasive non-native species in Scotland's ancient and native woodlands, which we saw and which we saw through illustration. The petitioners also expressed concern at the lack of urgency to develop the ancient woodland register and international investors buying land for carbon offsetting and then planting non-native conifer. They are calling for the creation of an environmental court to help address concerns about the lack of enforcement of protections, including those within MPF4. The petitioners' most recent submission draws our attention to the impacts of further tree felling in their local area, despite tree protection orders being in place, and encourages us to invite further evidence from the Confederation of Forestry's Industries conifer on the action that its industry is taking to protect ancient woodland and remove invasive species. Members may remember that we had a representative from conifer in a round table that we held some two years ago in March 2022. Before I ask members for suggestions, we are joined again, very pleased to have with us Jackie Baillie MSP, who has been pursuing this petition longer than some of the members of the committee, because she has been with us as we have heard the petition at its various stages. Jackie Baillie, is there anything you would like to say to the committee? Absolutely, and thank you for your forbearance in allowing me to come back. Repeatedly, convener, and also thanks to the petitioners, Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker for their determination to see this through. As you rightly referred, it has been four years since you have heard, since the petition was lodged, and I have to say that in that time very little action has been taken by the Scottish Government to prevent the further destruction of our natural historic environment. Whilst we deliberate the petition, the Government drags its feet, time runs out to stop vast monoculture plantations, destroying our biodiversity, our environment and our heritage. One of the suggestions raised last time was that the committee could consider a debate in the chamber on this petition, because, of course, Ancient Woodland touches every part of Scotland. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and the Islands said in an August submission to the committee that Scottish Government officials are progressing plans for a new register of ancient woodlands, but said that it is not possible to provide a timescale for completion. That is disappointing, and I think that it reflects a distinct lack of urgency over so much of the Scottish Government's actions in this regard. It is interesting in the cabinet secretary's response that the point to a native woodland survey that was last done in 2014, that survey identified 5 per cent of non-native species, yet a Caledonian recovery project, another survey carried out much later, had 30 per cent of plots with non-native species in their boundary of what was being surveyed. That is a substantial increase in less than a decade, and that should have us extremely worried. Apparently, this project is doing wonderful and will remove non-native species from X number of hectares, but what does that mean in real terms? What percentage of that is the problem that needs to be tackled and has it survived the recent round of budget cuts? There is a lot to be concerned about, and there is a lot to be concerned about the lack of regulatory powers. I am astonished at the complacency in the cabinet secretary's response, because the protections, frankly, are not adequate, and let me make three small points as I draw to a close. Firstly, tree preservation orders in 2022—U as a committee—did some work on that to test effectiveness. The petitioner's latest submission states that the TPO's don't actually protect trees. TPO's are being filmed, and then developments are taking place in those localities. We have examples to illustrate that. There is nothing in the biodiversity strategy, which is the forerunner for the new environment bill to deal with strengthening TPO's at all. Royal Society of Edinburgh inquiries is the second piece that I would bring to the committee's attention. Members of the RSE are currently lecturing on behalf of the Royal Geographic Society of Scotland to educate the public on all the points that the petitioners have raised in their petition. The forestry mantra of right tree in the right place is not what is currently happening across the country. Finally, the disenfranchisement of communities. The petitioners have often mentioned that communities are absent from dialogue about what to do with trees in a local area and changes in the forestry industry. The example that I would cite is my own constituency. This is Taw Farm Wood in Ru. There is an incident there of illegal filling after which the landowner and Scottish Forestry responded to a community event that the community council organised. I attended that event. Scottish Forestry promised that it would bring forward a revised management plan for this ancient woodland. It promised that it would consult the community council. I think that more than a year later, if not two years later, is a ffata comply simply handed to the community council as a done deal. I remind committee members that trees with TPO's were filmed illegally. There is action required quickly. Time is running out. Scottish Government action is terribly slow. We need to urge them on because, at the moment, what you are finding is that, as our ancient woodlands are disappearing because non-native species are taking over, this is happening at pace, so we really need some action now before the situation becomes any worse. Thank you very much, Jackie Baillie. Again, for that passionate exposition and support of the petition, I wonder if it is too corny of me to absorb that we have had two cops and if we have a third, that will be more than I have in my constituency. Colleagues, can we have some suggestions as to how we might proceed? I wonder if a committee would consider writing to Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands and to ask when the Scottish Government will publish its analysis of its consultation on tackling the nature emergency Scotland's strategic framework for biodiversity and seek an update on its plans to introduce a natural environment bill. A committee would also consider writing to the confederation of forest industries to highlight the petitioner's latest submission and seek information on the action and forestry industry is taking to remove invasive non-native species and ensure the protection of ancient woodlands. The sounder who always likes to grant Jackie Baillie's wishes, I wonder if a committee would add the petition to a short lift of topics a committee may wish to seek for parliamentary debate and further consideration when a committee next meets for its work programme. Thank you. I'm going to come to Mr Ewing in a second, but I wonder if we might be slightly stronger with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, because I would like to express some disappointment on behalf of the committee at the suggestion that this can only be undertaken as a significant and long-term undertaking. That seems to me really to not demonstrate the urgency that I think has been evidenced by everything that we've heard and also to be very nonspecific in terms of what that might mean. It seems to me incredibly open-ended and clearly means that it would not be a matter that would be progressed in my reading of that during the lifetime of this Parliament, and I do feel that that is not entirely acceptable. Mr Ewing. I think that I probably should declare an interest in that I'm the convener of the cross-party group on panel products, which of course tends to consider the interests of the, I think, 25,000 people who are employed in sawmills and panel products and in related sectors and a key part of the economy, and they rely on the continued supply over decades of species such as Cicrus proust, for example, which are essential for what they do and without which they would not be in Scotland, convener. I was just checking through the history of the, long history of the petition and I couldn't really see any contribution from anyone on the, I don't want to say on the other side because I don't think this is a case of sides. I think everybody wants to see combination of productive and native species and everybody values them both and there has to be a balance, but we haven't heard from the commercial side, we haven't heard from the representatives of the panel products or the sawmills sector and Confor, I think, should be given a chance to hear. Before we consider whether it's appropriate to have a debate, I would prefer to hear what they have to say so that we have the right to be heard and belongs to everybody. The other point I would make is that, and I don't say this every day, but I've got some sympathy with the Scottish Government in this instance because if we think about it, I don't expect the Government to come along and repair the grass boiler in my house or a broken roof. Most of the ancient woodlands do not belong to the Government, they belong to private landowners and therefore the obligations do, from a legal point of view at any rate, forget there's a societal interest, yes, Ms Bailey has quite rightly highlighted that, but also we don't really want to be paying as tax payers for things which owners should be doing to look after the silvy cultural handling of their property. I just thought I should mention that, just in the sake of balance, convener, I'm not against a debate or in any way against the eloquent arguments, but I think we need to hear from both sides. I'm quite happy for us to write to this organisation again in the first instance, but we're talking here about the register of ancient woodland, not the responsibility for the maintenance or undertaking thereafter. It is in relation to the register that I think we seem to have strayed into an argument of them against us to some extent of ancient woodlands versus introduced or commercial species. I think that it's a very difficult sensitive argument that needs to be handled with that sensitivity, but it does need both sides, that's my point. I certainly think from our committee visit, I mean that I don't think those conflicts were actually evident, it was very much physical evidence of the invasive nature of the issue and the lack of urgency in relation to producing the register of ancient woodland, which obviously does exist, because otherwise we wouldn't have one-two that would be capable of being updated. Are the committee content for us to proceed with those actions? We are, thank you all very much. I'm going to suspend briefly because we have a large gallery party who are wishing to join us and I have to also excuse David Torrance from proceedings for the rest of the meeting. Thank you. Welcome back. Our next continued petition is petition 1926, to expand universal free school meals for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils. This was lodged by Alison Dowling and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand universal free school meals provision for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils, last considered by us at our meeting on 28 June last year. At that point, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and to COSLA. COSLA note that planning is under way for the delivery of expansion of free school meals to pupils in primary six and primary seven, with the school estates readiness to accommodate the expansion looking significantly different depending on each individual school. COSLA have also been clear that in order for this expansion to be deliverable, the full resource and capital costs of the programme must be provided by the Scottish Government. COSLA do not have an agreed position on further expansion to include secondary school pupils, however they do note that any new commitments in this area would require full resourcing to enable successful delivery. The Cabinet Secretary states that it is her priority to roll out universal provision of free school meals to primary six and primary seven pupils, starting with those who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment. The response also indicates that the Scottish Futures Trust surveyed the resource and capital needs of local authorities to deliver a phased roll-out of free school meal provision. Since our last consideration of the petition, the 23.24 programme for government has been published, with a commitment referring only to the roll-out of universal free school meal provision to primary six and primary seven during 2026, with no further mention of the plans to deliver a pilot in secondary schools. In that light, do members have any suggested options for action? Mr Golden? Thank you, convener. I think that we should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to seek an update on action being taken to ensure the phased roll-out of free school meals provision proceeds without delay, including further information on the outcomes of the Scottish Futures Trust survey on the resource and capital needs that are required by local authorities to deliver that commitment. It might also be helpful to ask the cabinet secretary to confirm in respect of the commitment, including in the programme of government, as you have mentioned, whether the Scottish Government still intends to take forward a pilot of universal free school meals in secondary schools during the current parliamentary term. Yes, I think that we particularly like to know whether that is the case, given that that was a Government commitment. Are colleagues content with the proposals from Mr Golden? Has anybody anything to add? No, we are. Thank you very much. We move then to petition number 1933 to allow the Ffrenethys survivors to access Scotland's redress scheme, lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Ffrenethys survivors group. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland's redress scheme to allow Ffrenethys survivors to seek redress. It is obvious that we have a considerable number of the survivors who have joined us again for today's contributions. Welcome to you all. We have also been joined by parliamentary colleagues Colin Smyth and Alec Cole-Hamilton, who have an interest in this petition. We have also received statements in support of the petition from Martin Whitfield, who I believe was present at the last hearing, and from Brian Whittle, who are unable to join us in person this morning. The committee last considered this petition at our meeting on 20 March when we heard from the evidence from the Deputy First Minister. I again offer my apologies having been at a funeral this morning, but I would very much like to congratulate my colleagues, and particularly our substitute member Oliver Mundell, for the tenacious way in which I believe that they ensured that the issues that are relevant were put to the Deputy First Minister. We obviously now have an opportunity today having heard that evidence to consider what we might do further. Following the evidence session, we received a written submission from the petitioner responding to the evidence heard from the Deputy First Minister. Evident in the petitioner's submission is the concern that the change of Deputy First Minister from John Swinney to Shona Robison appears to have led to a shifting of the goalposts by the Scottish Government, with the lack of official records from Frenethy preventing survivors from pursuing applications to the redress scheme. Despite the points that Mr Mundell made in relation to why that was not, he thought that an obstacle could not be overcome. The petitioner draws our attention to potential inconsistencies between the findings of Dr Fossey's report and the findings of Professor MacCaddy's research in terms of how Frenethy House operated. We are not taking evidence this morning, but, as is my custom, I always seek to try and invite and hear from members and colleagues who have an interest in the issues that have been raised, and I will invite Colin Smyth first, as he has been quite closely involved in this petition for some time, if he would like to speak to the committee and offer some thoughts. Thank you very much, convener, for the opportunity to address the committee. I can also thank the committee for the robust and thorough approach that you have taken to this important petition. I have the privilege of being one of Marian Reed's regional MSPs in South Scotland. Marian, as you will be aware, established Frenethy House's residential school survivors group, and she along with as many survivors who could find seats for are here today. Because of that group, hundreds of women have bravely come forward, women who were sent by the state to Frenethy, as we girls in many cases in the 1960s, where they were subjected to unimaginable physical, mental and, in some cases, sexual abuse under the care of the state. That is not in dispute. Their bravery, I believe, has exposed how fundamentally unfair the redress scheme is. As you have said, convener, the then Deputy First Minister told the Education Committee in January 2023 that, I quote, I reject the idea that the scheme is not for Frenethy survivors. I think that it is possible for Frenethy survivors to be successful in applying under the scheme. Last month, the current Deputy First Minister confirmed to the committee that the circumstances at Frenethy were explicitly excluded from the scheme by the Government. As the Deputy First Minister told the committee, regulations brought in by the Government after the primary legislation was passed in 2021 mean short-term so-called respite care was excluded. However, as the women themselves say in their latest submission to the committee, it only takes one event, one day, to change your world view of life forever and the lasting trauma that brought. Are we not worthy because we were only abused for a short period? The Deputy First Minister said to the committee that because the personal records in Glasgow city archives have not been found, it would be difficult even if the circumstances were changed and the criteria were changed for survivors to meet the evidential requirement. However, what about the collective memory of those survivors, their painful stories, their recollections, in some cases the photographs and the letters that they have? Those women are not making it up and redress has been made in other similar circumstances where official records have been destroyed. When the Deputy First Minister said to the committee that Farnethu survivors are excluded because of parental consent, we cannot and should not apply modern-day notions of consent in the historical context that we are dealing with. Those wee girls were sent to Farnethu by the state and they were abused by the state. No one except those responsible for that abuse consented to that happening. As the Scottish Human Rights Commission have consistently argued, all survivors who have been abused where there was state responsibility have the right to an effective remedy and we are failing to provide that. For those women abused before 1964 in particular, civil court action cannot legally be pursued and as time passes criminomic cases become less likely as the perpetrators pass away. For many redress is their only remedy, their only shot. Convener, the Deputy First Minister cannot put on record to this committee her acknowledgement of that abhorrent abuse that these wee girls suffered at Farnethu, but then say that there will be no redress. I hope that the committee will stand by your very robust calls for change if there needs to be a new scheme or a change to the scheme that prioritises pre-1964 survivors and you stand by those brave women. We meet many people in a role as MSPs and I doubt I'll meet a braver group of women than the Farnethu survivors and I want to pay tribute to them. In the latest submission, the women said, trust is sacred. Our trust was broken as little girls and now again our very trust in the justice system that is there to help us and has the power to do the right thing has been shattered. Convener, we need to do the right thing and restore that trust to these women. Thank you very much, Mr Smith. I know that members of the gallery will be keen to join in and to show support, but let's say that we understand as a committee that that is implicit. Mr Cole-Hamilton, is this your debut at the public petition committee? It is, convener. Welcome to you and would you like to address the committee? Thank you, convener, and thank you for indulging your indulgence in allowing Colin and I to address the committee this morning. Of course, there is a legal dimension to this, so there's an element of detail that we can't go into around the cases and the survivors and the abuse that they suffered. There's much that we can't say. There's much we want to say, and I hope that in the fullness of time and the conclusion of those legal proceedings, there will be an opportunity for those stories to be told in full. I, too, want to begin my remarks by paying tribute to Fennethy survivors, in particular Marion Reed, and many of whom, as you say, joined us in the gallery this morning. Many of those who you see before us today joined Colin and I on a trip back to Fennethy house last summer. It was a very emotional but cathartic visit. I first met these women over two years ago. The accounts of brutality and sexual abuse that they suffered and that they imparted to me as young children are absolutely horrendous and harrowing. They still keep me awake at night. The courage that these women have demonstrated in telling what happened to them and fighting for justice, sometimes against the prevailing wind, has been truly inspiring. They have said that this has never been about money. However, they do want more than anything as an acknowledgement of the abuse that they suffered to receive a full and meaningful public apology. In her remarks to the committee last month, the Deputy First Minister said that these women should be excluded from the redress scheme, arguing that they were sent to Fennethy for short-term care. However, that runs contrary to the accounts of countless women. We know that thousands of girls from disadvantaged backgrounds were sent by Glasgow City Council to Fennethy as educational pupils at a residential school, not as children attending a rest-bike care centre or a holiday home. It has been suggested that these girls' parents sent them to Fennethy voluntarily, but they were largely vulnerable, impoverished families who put their children into the care of the school system that facilitated their attendance at Fennethy. Even the former Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, has said that he finds it difficult to reconcile placing a young person in Fennethy house with, I quote, some sort of voluntary endeavour. He also rejected the idea that the scheme is not for these survivors. It would be a grave injustice to bar these women from the redress scheme. I hope that today that the committee votes or recognises the stories of these courageous women and, to the very least, allow them to tell their story to the world, to recognise their victimhood and to recognise that the redress scheme should as well apply to them. It has been one of the privileges of my parliamentary career to bring light to their story. I stand with them today. I have stood with them for the last two years and I will continue, along with Colin Smyth and other parliamentarians, named in your opening remarks, to stand with them for as long as it takes them to find justice. I was not able to be present, but ahead of the funeral that I had to attend, I was able to watch the proceedings live in relation to the petition. I have had an opportunity to consider the official record. Before inviting colleagues of those proposals, they would like to make themselves. First, I would like to have the committee's agreement to write to John Swinney MSP. I would like to draw the attention of the suggestion that came out as a result of the evidence that was taken of the potential shift in opinion that has happened between his period as Deputy First Minister and the current Deputy First Minister to understand if he recognises or supports or understands the position that the current Deputy First Minister is taking. Secondly, I would like to propose that we invite Redress Scotland to come before this committee to explain their position and to understand further what we believe under interrogation might be done. Are members content with those two proposals? Are there other suggestions that Mr Gould and Mr Ewing would like to make? Thank you, convener. I think that it is probably worth reflecting that the evidence that we received at our last meeting was, in my view, disturbing and deeply troubling. I think that we should look to ensure that the petitioners are properly recognised. I think that you are right to highlight what appears to be a difference in approach from the current Deputy First Minister and the previous one. I think that where we got to was that there was a recognition of the harm of those survivors for Nethau, but beyond that there was no further action that the Scottish Government was going to take on the basis that there may be many more victims out there, first of all, and secondly that those victims, according to the Deputy First Minister, only experienced the abuse for a very short time, which is quite a harrowing suggestion to make. I agree with your point. I also think that it would also be worthwhile writing to the Law Society of Scotland and Thomson's solicitors to seek their views on the issues raised by the petition, including any advice that they provide to potential applicants to the redress scheme about evidential requirements. I agree with all that and recognise the sentiments that were expressed by Mr Swith and Mr Cole-Hamilton and would entirely agree with everything that they have said. At the meeting where we heard from the current Deputy First Minister, I felt that the arguments that were being presented were insupportable, unjustifiable and inexcusable and quite impossible to defend on any basis, frankly. I have seen the written submission of the 10th of April from the petitioner, some of which has been alluded to. I wanted to make two additional suggestions, which at this point are contingent. In other words, they may not require to be resorted to, but I think that they should be if necessary. First of all, I think that your suggestion convener that we raised with John Swinney the apparent contradiction between the positions adopted by the two Deputy First Ministers, the current and the previous, is an excellent one. At the end of the day, where the second in command adopts two apparently different positions, what do you do? You go to the boss and say, look, your two deputies can agree with each other. One was the previous Deputy and not the current First Minister, but he was still the Deputy First Minister of Scotland. Therefore, we should indicate that we might be minded to seek evidence from the First Minister if we cannot get justice for the people that are here today and those who cannot be with us. In addition, it would be helpful to signal, convener, that if all of these things proved to be ineffective, we would not be doing our job unless we go back to the floor of our Parliament and debate this issue there. I do wish to be unkind, but I do sometimes feel like one of the judges in these TV programmes, where I have to keep reminding council that he is not a witness, he is easier to make constructive suggestions as a member of the committee. I think that we have incorporated, we will take on-board the spirit and sentiment, because I think that the committee was very unanimously of the view underpinning that. Mr Chowdry. Thank you, convener. I did ask the current Deputy First Minister the question that if she would change the regulation, so can we ask if what is her current position on this? I do not think that we have got a clear answer, so can we also ask that question? Thank you, Mr Chowdrys. I read the transcript. You said, good morning Deputy First Minister, could you change the regulation even though the current position is not to change it? Deputy First Minister, technically yes. But then along treatise. I am inclined to wonder whether, in the letter that we write to Mr Swinney, we ask, because I do believe that his position was slightly different, whether, in fact, he was minded to consider that at the time when he was in office. Mr Ewing is correct. Obviously, there is an opportunity at the biannual conveners meeting with the First Minister for the issues of a particular petition to be put by me as convener to the First Minister. Also, in the event that we get to that point, it is perfectly possible for us to, as a committee, lead a debate in the chamber if we are not satisfied. However, I think that there are a few petitions where the committee has been so robustly unanimous in its view at the way in which matters have progressed and the outcome that we think is achievable and ought to be pursued. We agreed with the various actions that have been suggested this morning. I thank Mr Smith and Mr Cole-Hamilton for joining us. I thank those in the gallery who have joined us as well. I am not going to suspend because we have quite a lot of business to go through, so if you are planning to leave, can I ask you maybe to be as discreet in your exit as you can be, and thank you all very much as we move on to petition number 1956, which is to increase the provision of wheelchair-accessible homes. With that off-camera audience participation, this has been lodged by Louise McGee. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the existing wheelchair-accessible housing target guidance and to explore options for increasing the availability of wheelchair-accessible housing in Scotland. Last considered, on 28 June, we agreed to write the Scottish Government and organisations involved with the Dying in the Margins exhibition. The Scottish Government responded to saying that good progress is being made by local authorities in both setting wheelchair-accessible housing targets and delivering more wheelchair-accessible homes. As a result, the Government has no plans to review the wheelchair-accessible housing target guidance at this time. The response also notes the Scottish Government's consultation on proposed changes to part 1 of the housing of for varying needs design guide, which will contribute to providing design criteria for housing design specifically for wheelchair users. We have also received submissions from academics involved in the Dying in the Margins study and the end-of-life charity Marie Curie sharing information on the impact of inadequate housing on those nearing the end-of-life and diagnosed with a terminal illness. The response has also set out recommendations for national and local government to address the housing needs of terminally ill people and their families and carers. I think that many in the committee understood that there is not much point in a response coming after, unfortunately, the person who needs its terminal illness has run its course and they are no longer with us. It has to be prompt and decisive. Do members of any comments or actions notwithstanding all that in respect of the aims of the petition? I think that unfortunately we have come to the end of the road with this petition, so I think that we should close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government firstly has no plans to review the wheelchair accessible housing target guidance at this time. Moreover, it has recently consulted on changes to part 1 of the housing for varying needs design guidance, which includes the design criteria for housing specifically designed for wheelchair users. Finally, it is considering the housing-related recommendations contained within the dying and margins policy briefing. Colleagues are content with that proposal. In closing the petition, I also thank the petitioners for raising the issue and say to them that we have only two years of this Parliament left, but they should hold in reserve the option of tabling a fresh petition. I would have thought in the next session of Parliament if, in fact, the progress that the Government believes it is undertaking and making proofs to be insufficient and that the issue remains just as live at that time. We move on to petition number 2017 to extend the period that specialist perinatal mental health support is made available beyond one year. The petition, lodged by Margaret Reid, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 24 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment Scotland Act 2003 to extend maternal mental health support beyond one year, to introduce a family liaison function at adult mental health units across at all health boards, to introduce specialised perinatal community teams that meet perinatal quality network standard type 1 across all health boards and to establish a mother and baby unit in the north-east of Scotland. We are joined this morning by Tess White, who we understand has also been supporting the petitioner in the pursuit of this petition. Good morning to you, Tess. Welcome back to the committee to which you once were a member. The Scottish Government provided this committee with information back in August of last year. In that submission, the Government noted its intent to publish an initial plan on options for changes to the Mental Health Care and Treatment Scotland Act 2003 by the end of last year. In November last year, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee followed up on the recommendations from its inquiry into perinatal mental health services. The Minister for Social Care, Mental Health and Sport provided an update in January this year that notes that a draft service specification for perinatal mental health services is being developed and that the NHS national services Scotland's report on mother and baby unit provision is now with the Scottish Government for consideration. The update also notes that the Scottish Government is continuing to collaborate with the Murray mother and baby units to conduct a review of the mother and baby unit family fund. Before I ask members of the committee how they think that we might proceed, I invite Tess White to address the committee. Thank you to the committee for its consideration of the petition. I have been moved deeply by Maggie's campaign to improve perinatal mental health services in Scotland. It began because of a horrendous experience of her sister Leslie. Maggie and Leslie could not make it today, so this is what they wanted to say to you when they are watching today. Leslie wants you to know having been admitted to both an MBU and an adult mental health unit, in my experience the environments and care are miles apart from what I experienced the adult mental health unit was a horrible environment for someone with my condition. I was one of two females on a male dominant ward, which made for intimidating and difficult conditions. Although I can understand why I was locked up and separated from my family, in the MBU the environment was softer and I had a focus as my baby was with me. This is from Leslie's sister Maggie, who raised the petition with you. Maggie says that after experiencing Leslie's terrible care when she was sectioned it made me want to make a change so that it did not happen to anyone else and it disappoints me and frustrates me how little the government has done to support the petition I put in. I keep asking myself, she says the same question, how many more women need to become so unwell that they need a system which fails them, or how many more women sadly die from being so ill? It's all over the newspaper just now, she says, regarding women's mental health and suicide, so why are you not acting faster? To date we've heard warm words from the Scottish Government about establishing a mother and baby unit in the north-east, but NHS building projects have now been put on hold for up to two years. A key message from organisations like the maternal mental health alliance is that these changes are so desperately needed. Suicide is the leading cause of deaths for new mothers. One in four mothers develop a mental health issue as a result of pregnancy or childbirth and many of these women are being failed every day with a postcode lottery in service provision. Finally, I urge the committee on behalf of Leslie and her sister Maggie to hold the Scottish Government to account on those issues and help Maggie to secure the urgent change that she's hoping for. Thank you very much, Tess White, for that impassioned address. In view of the submissions that we've received and, indeed, the evidence from Tess White, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed? I should highlight that I know the petitioner and her sister and raised the matter with the First Minister previously, but it's my colleague Tess White who has been primarily supporting the petition and raises some pertinent points. I think that our first course of action should be to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental, Well-being and Sport to seek an update on the development of draft service specification for perinatal mental health services, as well as progress on the Scottish Government's consideration of national services Scotland's options appraisal report on mother and baby unit provision, to provide an update on the review of the mother and baby unit family fund and, finally, on the publication of the mental health and capacity reform programme that was initially expected to be published at the end of last year. Are we content with those suggestions? Are there any other complementary suggestions from members of the committee? Ms White, ordinarily, I wouldn't, but if you have a suggestion for some further action, then I'm sure the committee would be happy to hear it. I do have a suggestion. Thank you, convener. Two things. You mentioned before that you would take a list to the First Minister of Petitions that this committee feels are very important, so I'd ask you if that could be in that list. Secondly, I asked NHS Grampian at the last meeting with us if they would consider making sure in their architects drawings there is design for this when the hospital goes ahead and is built. If that could be included, that would be welcome. Thank you. I'm sure that colleagues would be happy to include the latter and to reflect on the former. Thank you very much. We then keep the petition open on that basis and pursue the actions, as suggested. Our next petition is petition number 2035, which is to—no, it's not—pretention number 2033, which is to introduce a full ban on disposable vapes. Apologies, I've got a bit of an introduction for this one. It's lodged by Jordan Anderson and it calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to legislate for a full or partial ban on disposable vapes in Scotland and recognises the dangers that these devices pose to both the environment and the health of young people. I'm conscious that there is quite a public debate around the whole issue of vapes, and so it's important that I set out the following information that we've received. We previously considered this petition at our meeting on 4 October last. We agreed to write to the Scottish Government action on smoking and health—I'm known as Ash Scotland—forrest, the UK vaping industry and other vape manufacturers, and we received a response from the Scottish Government, which notes that its commitment to consulting a proposed ban on single-use vapes has been taken forward through the Four Nations joint consultation, which ran from 12 September to 6 December 2023. We've also received a submission from Ash Scotland, which notes its support for a ban on disposable e-cigarettes and provides survey data on the increase of young people using disposable e-cigarettes. Responses have also been received from the Independent British Vape Trade Association and the UK Vaping Industry Association, both of which caution against the unintended consequences of banning an entire vaping product category, and argue that a ban on single-use vapes would have a detrimental impact on adults trying to quit smoking. I would also draw members' attention to the publication of draft regulations to ban the sale and supply of disposable vapes that were published in February and are expected to come into force in next April. To the ministerial statement provided to Parliament on 26 March this year, just a few weeks ago, updating us on the Scottish Government's work to tackle youth vaping. We've also received a submission from the petitioner expressing their skepticism of the aim of Scotland to be tobacco-free in the next 10 years and suggests that marketing campaigns are not enough to deter young people from vaping. Although the petitioner welcomes the introduction of tobacco and vapes bill to the UK Parliament, he's concerned that regulation of online sales of vaping products has not been included in the bill. I think that it possibly is also pertinent to note actions currently being progressed by the UK Government at the Westminster Parliament in relation to actions to control tobacco consumption. In light of the various initiatives and the responses that we've received, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might now proceed? I think that we should close the petition but not quite at this stage. I think that we should wait to see if the regulations proposed by the Scottish Government come into force, which would achieve the aims of the petitions. I believe that they're at draft stage at the moment, and they will be introduced. Out of comfort to all, I think that we should wait until that occurs before we close the petition. If I can summarise then, we are taking in principle the decision to close the petition but deferring that formal decision being taken until the regulations are introduced or until at least we were told the regulations were going to be introduced at which point, we will either close or then inquire why that's not happened. Does that meet the approval of the committee? It does. That brings us to petition number 2035 to recognise a legal control of generalist predators as a conservation act, a petition on which we took evidence recently, lodged by Alex Hogg on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, calling in the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to officially recognise legal control of abundant generalist predators as an act of conservation to help ground nesting birds in Scotland. Members, I'm sure, will recall that session with Mr Hogg. He called for a ministerial statement recognising predator control on the value of gamekeepers in addressing the biodiversity crisis. He also suggested ways that the Scottish Government could actively support predator control activity. In the light of the evidence that we heard from Mr Hogg, I wonder if colleagues have suggestions as to how we proceed. Mr Ewing. Thank you, convener. I suggest that we write to the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity to highlight the petitioner's evidence to which you've just alluded, and in which, as I recall, convener, having briefly reread some of it, not only did he ask for a ministerial statement, which I'll come on to mention in a moment, but he also postulated the good work that his members and others do in controlling predators in order to encourage biodiversity and the reduction in the loss of numbers of other species that should be recognised perhaps financially in the forthcoming decisions about the restructuring of agricultural support in Scotland. I mentioned that because I thought that was a very innovative suggestion and one that deserves to be considered as well. I would invite the minister to consider that specific suggestion, but four other points for the minister. First, if she will give a ministerial statement, as Mr Hogg suggested, to recognise predator control and the value of gamekeepers in addressing the biodiversity crisis. Whether there is information available on the costs and outcomes for each conservation method—again, the minister dealt with various conservation methods, and I got the impression from the statement of 28 November that it appeared to not really prefer predator control at all that screams out at the page at you. Will the minister commission research to compare the costs of each method against the outcomes? That surely would assess whether we get value for money or whether we don't. What financial support is available for predator control activity and the minister's view on whether more funding should be made available for keepers to carry out in this work to support conservation aims and whether consideration has been given to area zoning to allow for targeted predator control whilst preventing widespread removal of species? Are there any other suggestions? Last committee petitioner mentioned that he goes to school to teach them about gamekeepers. People didn't know about what gamekeeper was, so I don't know if he has done anything, because he did mention that that needs to be taught in schools, and a lot of people are not aware of that. Is there any improvement on that? I suppose that we could include a question to the minister as to what efforts are made to promote the work that the value of work and the contribution that gamekeepers make. Are we content with those proposals? That brings us to agenda item 3, which is the consideration of new petitions. To those who might be watching our proceedings, because this is the first consideration of their petition, I say that ahead of the consideration of any new petition, we seek a view from the Scottish Government. Obviously, because otherwise that would be the first thing that we would do. We also receive a briefing from the Scottish Parliament's independent research body, SPICE. I would like to thank everybody in SPICE for the work that they do on behalf of this committee. Most committees, I think, probably draw upon the experience and advice of SPICE in relation to a core subject, and therefore follow a fairly clear narrative path. The very varied agenda of the Public Petitions Committee means that we are going to SPICE with the broadest possible diet of requests for supporting information. I think that the committee is very grateful for the detailed briefing that we receive in respect of new petitions, particularly when we are taking evidence respect of a new petition. The first of these new petitions is on familiar territory, given the conversation that we just had a moment ago. That is in relation to petition number 2066, treat vapes and e-cigarettes like cigarettes and tobacco, lodged by Lewis MacMartin calling on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to treat vapes and e-cigarettes the same as tobacco and cigarettes by banning the brightly coloured packaging and contents and or removing these devices from public display so that they are only available from behind the customer service counter, preventing special offers that promote the sale of multiple units for a cheaper price. The petition notes legislation passed in 2010 to prohibit the display of tobacco and smoking-related products and suggest that if vapes and e-cigarettes are to be sold as tools for smoking cessation, they should be tobacco flavoured. As noted in the SPICE briefing, the Health, Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care Scotland Act 2016 placed restrictions on the marketing, advertising and sale of vaping products. The act also includes powers for Scottish ministers over restricting or prohibiting displays and promotions of nicotine vapour products, however, those powers have yet to be exercised. Again, as I did during the consideration of the related petition a moment ago, I would draw members' attention to the ministerial statement that was provided to Parliament on 26 March, updating us on the Scottish Government's work towards a tobacco-free Scotland by 2034 and tackling youth vaping. That includes the introduction of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to the UK Parliament, which would give ministers power to regulate retail displays of vapes and other nicotine products, as well as extending existing provisions on the regulation and distribution of nicotine products. There is a lot to suggest in that. Do members have any comments or suggestions on the light of all that as to what might be appropriate? I wonder whether we might close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing order on the basis that the Scottish Government are considering actively in next steps following the consultation and proposed rules to tighten existing restrictions on the advertisements and promotion of vaping products. Secondly, UK-wide legislation has been introduced to the UK Parliament, which would extend existing powers available to Scottish ministers on the regulation and distribution of nicotine products and give Scottish ministers power to introduce regulations around the display of vaping and other nicotine products. Are we content on that basis? Unlike the previous petition, which we will hold open to see whether what was promised occurs, I think that, in view of the information that we have received, we will close this petition. Is that the committee agreed? It is. I thank the petitioner, but for the reasons that are stated, I hope that they will understand the limit on how we feel that we can proceed. Petition number 2071, to take action to protect people from airborne infections in health and social care settings, lodged by Sally Witcher and Jackie Baillie MSP, has endured our proceedings since she last contributed to stay with us to contribute to this petition as well. 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 routine mask wearing in those settings, particularly respiratory masks, to reintroduce routine Covid testing, to ensure staff manuals fully cover preventing airborne infection, to support ill staff to stay home, and to provide public health information on the use of respiratory masks and the HEPA air filtration against airborne infections. The SPICE briefing states that the highest risk list ended on 31 May 2022 and that the extended use of face masks and coverings guidance across health and social care settings was withdrawn on 16 May last year. The Scottish Government's submission explains that there is a robust process 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 routine testing pre-discharge from hospitals to care homes and hospices. On staff manuals, the submission explains that the Scottish Government has no ownership or control over the content of the national infection prevention and control manual. On the issue of ventilation, new guidance for non-clinical workplaces was published in October 2022, and it 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 the meeting papers. The petitioner 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 when the mask guidance was withdrawn. The petitioner highlights that an estimated 1 in 10 infections result in long Covid and that care workers are disproportionately affected. She points out that NHS England has guidance on the use of HEPAs and sterilisation in hospital, 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 ability for fresh air to be provided. In response to petitioner questions, what the Care Inspectorate would consider to be adequate and suitable ventilation and asks how that is to be addressed and enforced. The issues raised by the petitioner are similar to issues on which we took evidence on a petition that was subsequently closed at an earlier time, where we heard from long-term Covid sufferers in relation to sustained issues arising from the former pandemic. Before I ask members how they might think that we would proceed in relation to the petitioner under Jackie Baillie. I thank Dr Sally Witcher for bringing the petition to Parliament. I am one of the co-conveners of the cross-party group on long Covid, so I am well aware of the calls to improve air quality in both health and social care settings and indoor settings such as schools. That is an issue that we have debated in Parliament. I was interested in the Scottish Government's response, because it sets out quite clearly what it is not doing. Covid has not gone away, and just because the Scottish Government believes that there is nobody still at risk does not make that true. Those who are immunosuppressed are still at risk of Covid, and it is what we do to protect them. As I said, Covid-19 has not gone away, clinical risk continues. There is a direct impact not just on somebody's health, but on the economy as well. Many of the statistics that we have seen in recent times show that the number of people who are not employed suggests that there is a problem that we need to consider. We also know that reinfection of Covid-19 increases your chances of long Covid. As Dr Witcher has said, one in 10 people are likely to get long Covid and have long-term symptoms. The impact on the economy is significant. It is seen in our public sector as well. I recently attended a long Covid group in Inverclyde. Everybody sitting round the table with long Covid was a front-line worker. Whether they worked in a school or in a health and social care setting, they were the ones without PPE at the beginning that have been impacted the most. It is having a significant effect not just on the economy in its widest but also on our public services and their ability to run. No-one is immune to the risk. All of us in here could get it. Vaccination is now restricted to those over 75 and people who are immunosuppressed. Regular testing has been stopped in health and social care settings, so we do not know who has got it and if they are passing it on. The use of face masks and covering is no longer mandatory, specifically in health and social care settings. I am not talking about the wider population. We do not even bother to count any more what the incidence is, so we do not know whether it is bad or not to any great degree. The introduction of improved air quality in health and social care settings would be an important step in preventing the infection and reinfection of Covid-19 and subsequent effects of long Covid, making PPP available for those who work with vulnerable people and bringing back testing so that we can monitor prevalence and direct a response and supporting people who are actually at home would make such a huge difference. The petitioner has shown in her submissions that clinically vulnerable people are more likely to experience poorer outcomes as a result of Covid. They report that they feel healthcare is unsafe and that action on clean air and use of respiratory masks in healthcare settings would make a difference. It is not just Covid, it is other respiratory illnesses. Study in Europe found that people exposed to dirtier air spent as many as four days longer in hospital and were 36 per cent more likely to need intensive care treatment, so it works for other illnesses as well. The research that was published in the European respiratory journal said that cleaner air brought health benefits almost as great as some of the medical treatments given to Covid-19 patients. In response to that, the petitioner's call for ventilation systems, the Scottish Government said that health boards should use their delegated capital budgets to maintain their estates, replace equipment and minimise risk to patients, staff and visitors. That is funny, because health boards are facing enormous budget pressures on a scale that we have not seen for a while and they will be forced to make cuts to their existing budgets with all capital projects halted. It is almost impossible for health boards to fund air filtration systems in hospitals that are needed to make clean air without assistance and being directed to do so. Of course, that is not just hospitals, that is about care settings too. Care homes or care at home and surely vulnerable people deserve a level of protection that reduces risk. For example, if you have carers coming in, you are immunosuppressed, surely PPE should be available in those cases. The care inspectorate submission does not consider that point at all, which is disappointing. In 2020, Belgium passed a law to improve indoor air quality in all closed spaces accessible to the public as a result of the expertise and learning that they acquired during Covid-19. Their awareness of the importance of good indoor air quality for health seems to have not learned any lessons at all and certainly not in relation to protecting those who are most vulnerable, who are immunocompromised. I would hope that the petition would start the process of ensuring that the Scottish Government paid attention to what it needs to do. This is our first consideration of the petition. It may well be that there are a number of views or further evidence that we would want to take. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action? To write to the Scottish Government to ask when its latest review of information sources and decisions relating to the pose of withdrawal of Covid-19 guidance took place and what outcome of this review were. Also, to write to the stakeholders to seek their views on the action call for the petition stakeholders could include the Royal College of Nursing, Scottish Care Alliance Scotland and also to write to the care inspector to ask how adequate and suitable ventilation is defined in practice and how it assesses and enforces the ventilation standards. Are there any other suggestions? I am particularly interested in Mr Chowdry, quite right in relation to the care inspectorate. Adequate and suitable is a very vague terminology and certainly is not, I would have thought, a benchmark against when any definable standard introduction could be monitored. Mr Golden? I think that we should also write to the Royal College of Physicians and included in our correspondence in particular to the Scottish Government, perhaps other stakeholders, is around the monitoring of indoor air quality, which could be relevant in terms of what factors you might want to do to improve that. I think that we need to get evidence around that. We will keep the petition open and we will begin our inquiry on that regard. Thank you very much and thank you again to Jackie Baillie for her participation. Petition number 2072 is to offer Covid-19 vaccine boosters to teachers and school staff. The Scottish Government, and it's been 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, has been guided by the independent expert clinical advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the JCVI. 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 not covered by JCVI advice. A statement of vaccinations from JCVI in February did not advise vaccination for teachers and school staff. The petitioner's submission states that he believes that the JCVI advice to be inadequate in preventing transmission in schools and questioned the basis for the Scottish Government relying so heavily on JCVI advice. He shares a tweet in his submission that sums up his view that this approach from the Scottish Government is not good enough. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? As a committee, we genuinely try and follow up with every petition, particularly consideration of new petitions. In this case, we should close it under 15.7 rule of the standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government intends to continue to follow advice from the JCVI on vaccination programmes and that the JCVI advice on as of spring 2024 vaccination does not suggest offering vaccinations to teachers and school staff and indicates that the autumn campaign will be smaller than in previous years. In the light of the advice that we have received in the Scottish Government's clear intention, are members content to accept Mr Golden's proposal? Members are, thank you. We will close that petition and, unfortunately, from the petitioner's point of view, we have to be able to have a realistic expectation of taking matters forward. The Government advice is very clear in relation to vaccinations and its empirical evidence basis. Our final new petition this morning is petition number 2073 to ensure accurate information is used when issuing court summons. It has been lodged by Robert MacDonald calling on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require the police and court services to check and address information that is up-to-date when issuing court summons and to allow those being summoned the chance to receive a summons if their address has changed, rather than the current system 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 were sent to an old address. The petitioner insisted that, as the police were able to obtain the correct address for the individual, that the courts should also have been able to issue the summons to the correct address. In essence, the police were able to get the correct address to arrest the individual, but they were not able to get the correct address to send them the notice of the summons. The Spice Briefing outlines provisions on the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995, which includes provisions for granting a warrant to apprehend the accused if it has proved to the court that the accused received the citation or, as knowledge of its contents. The Scottish Government has responded to say that the petition relates to an area in which it has no policy position or role and which is an operational matter for the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service in Police Scotland. We have also received a submission from the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service, which adds further detail to the briefing Spice produced 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, if there is information, the accused is avoiding the citation. The submission also notes that where information is provided that the accused is no longer at their address and they are aware about are unknown, there is a mechanism for the outstanding warrant to be reviewed by a prosecutor who will take into account the prospects of tracing the accused and the nature of the offence consider if there is a public interest in pursuing the prosecution. Do members have any suggestions for action? I am minded to keep this open at the moment. I have to say that it did strike me as a basic lack of shared communication that could have resolved the matter. Might we write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service in Police Scotland to seek their views on the issues raised by the petition? How was it that Police Scotland, in the particular case that the petitioner raises, was able to identify where the individual was to perform an arrest, that it was not possible for that information to be made available in respect of the sending of the summons? Does that seem reasonable? I think that we should ask if there is any data. Is this common in Scotland, and if there is any data, what is the percentage of people— I am quite happy to try to establish what information exists in relation to the number of occurrences where that happens. That concludes the public part of our meeting for today, and we will resume in public on 1 May. We now move into private session to consider items 4 and 5.