Chamber and committees

Thank you. I have a point to make and a follow-up question. I very much agree about taking as much understanding as possible from international examples. In our report, the committee decided not to recommend a legislative process at this time, because we felt that the model that might suit the Scottish dynamic would need to evolve as a result of experience and learning from other jurisdictions. Our experience, having visited Ireland and Paris and having engaged with Brussels, is that there is no one-size-fits-all model. A model has to evolve within the constitutional architecture of every country to ensure that it achieves its proper outcome. I am delighted that that work is still going on.

My follow-up question is whether you are satisfied that, within the Scottish budget as it is currently constituted, the funds are in place to allow you to undertake that continuous evaluation and work to determine where we might land in respect of any architecture that we put in place for participation at that kind of level.

Thank you very much for your candour: that was very enlightening. I do not think that we have any further questions. I am sorry: Mr Golden wants to come in. Mr Adam, do you want to come in before Mr Golden?

The petitioner, Roger Mullin, is with us in the public gallery today. We will seek to take evidence from him, the anti-SLAPP research hub, the Law Society of Scotland and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety at future meetings. Are there any other organisations that we would like to include? Fergus Ewing has suggested that we speak to Mr Graeme Johnston, too.

Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Marie McNair, do you want to follow up on that?

That is duly noted, Mr Ewing.

Do we agree to keep the petition open on the basis that has been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition, PE1975, which was lodged by Roger Mullin, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and amend the law to prevent the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, which have the unfortunate acronym of SLAPPs.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 18 January, when the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland, the National Union of Journalists, the Scottish Newspaper Society and the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Law Commission has confirmed that it does not have any current work in its programme of law reform that is relevant to the petition.

The Minister for Community Safety’s written submission noted that, although defamation is not the only type of proceeding that is used for this purpose, it

“is the most common route to silence or intimidate.”

The submission details enhanced legal protections that have been brought about by the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021, particularly the ability for unfounded proceedings to be dismissed at an early procedural hearing in relevant circumstances.

The Law Society of Scotland points out that, between 2013 and 2021, when the threshold to bring defamation action was lower in Scotland than it was in England and Wales, there was not a significant increase in the number of cases brought in Scotland. It highlights work that is being undertaken by the Council of Europe to develop a draft recommendation on SLAPPs, with the working group concluding its work by December 2023.

The National Union of Journalists states that threats of legal action often act as an effective deterrent and go unreported, which means that the true scale of the issue “cannot easily be captured.” The NUJ argues that the statutory definition of SLAPPs must be broad in order to cover the wide range of tactics deployed.

The anti-SLAPP research hub’s written submission points to the UK Government’s consultation, which observed that protection through a serious harm test or public interest defence in defamation cases comes too late in proceedings to deter abusive litigation.

The petitioner’s written submission describes the Scottish Government’s response as “complacent” and states that

“SLAPPs cannot be judged solely on the basis of those cases that come to court.”

His most recent submission highlights some of the on-going work that is being done to increase engagement on the call for Scottish anti-SLAPP legislation.

After that rather extended summary, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We can see whether SPICe can undertake that work. I would also like us, if we can find the information, to establish whether there is any clinical evidence on the consequences of vaping. Clearly, ASH is wholly funded by the Scottish Government, so it will not disagree with the Scottish Government’s proposals. It is not that I wish to—well, I suppose that I do, but I would just like something that is a little bit independent of ASH as we try to identify something factual on these matters, instead of our just getting information from lobby organisations wholly funded by Government.

Our final new petition is PE2038, which has been lodged by Ehlers-Danlos Support UK and asks that suitable NHS services be commissioned for people with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, or HEDS, and hypermobility spectrum disorders, or HSD.

The SPICe briefing explains that Ehlers-Danlos syndromes are a group of rare inherited conditions that affect connective tissues in the body and that there are different types of EDS, including hypermobile EDS. The briefing also outlines other hypermobility spectrum disorders and notes that guidance on and guidelines for managing EDS have not been straightforward, due to some views that the evidence base is insufficient and varied opinions on the best way of managing the conditions.

The Scottish Government has outlined that diagnosis and patient care are provided by local and regional rheumatology services with the input of other specialities. Its submission highlights the Scottish rare disease action plan and states that the actions in the plan will address issues around the lack of signposting, referral pathways and overall care co-ordination, including for those living with HEDS and hypermobility spectrum disorders. The petitioner’s written submission disputes the categorisation of HEDS and HSD as rare, stating low diagnosis of the issue and saying that four out of five people to whom it has spoken have not been diagnosed.

The submission also refers to a bid made in 2018 by Professor Stuart Ralston for a specialist centre that was supported by consultants, therapists and patients but not by the Scottish Society for Rheumatology. The petitioner highlights concern about access to services through rheumatology, stating its understanding that rheumatologists have been directed not to see people with non-inflammatory conditions.

In light of the submissions that we have received in addition to that from the petitioning organisation, do colleagues have any suggestions for action? If not, I suggest that we write to the national services division to ask whether it remains committed to producing a paper highlighting the issues and service gaps that people with EDS and HSD encounter; why the proposal in 2018 by Professor Stuart Ralston for a specialist EDS centre was rejected; and whether it has monitored the delivery of its commitment to encourage regional expertise and services in place of a specialist centre. We might also write to the Government to ask how it intends to engage with people with HEDS and HSD in taking forward actions under the rare disease action plan, either individually or through Ehlers-Danlos Support UK.

Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Is that a metaphor that you recognise more generally, minister?

On which note, I will suspend the meeting briefly. Thank you very much.