���˿���

Agenda item 5 is consideration of new petitions. In case people joining us to follow our proceedings this morning have a petition that we are considering I will let them know, as I always do, that, ahead of each petition’s first consideration, we invite the Scottish Government to comment on it and we seek comment from the Scottish Parliament’s independent research unit, SPICe.

The first new petition is PE2013, which is on the implementation of a national dashcam safety portal and was lodged by Neil McNamara. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce without delay a national dashcam safety portal, as has already been agreed by Police Scotland.

The SPICe briefing explains that a national dashcam safety portal would provide an online channel for members of the public to submit directly to Police Scotland evidence of potential road traffic offences that is recorded on dashcams, helmet cameras and mobile phones.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition highlights its recent programme for government commitment on the issue. The programme states that Police Scotland will seek to build on the Scottish Government’s investment to make it easier to submit digital evidence to report poor road user behaviour. Dundee has piloted the digital evidence-sharing capability programme, or DESC, which allows a request for digital evidence to be sent to a member of the public.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I say thank you very much to Mr Brebner. We will take forward the objectives of the petition and, I hope, consider it again in early course when we have responses from those to whom we are writing.

The citizens assemblies, sorry, yes.

PE1984, on the introduction of the C100 form for child arrangement orders in Scotland, was lodged by Amy Stevenson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reduce the financial barriers that prevent parents from having contact with their children by introducing a Scottish equivalent to the C100 form, with a fixed fee for making applications for child residence or child contact orders.

We previously considered the petition on 22 February, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland, the Family Law Association, Relationships Scotland, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the family law committee of the Scottish Civil Justice Council.

The Scottish Government response sets out its view that

“it is better if separating parents can agree about what is best for their child.”

The response includes information on existing resources and services intended to assist separating parents to resolve disputes and make arrangements outside of court.

The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service response highlights the “potential impacts” of the introduction of a form-based approach on the court service. A number of responses that we received also noted that the introduction of a C100-type form might encourage people to go straight to court without first considering alternative options. While fixed fees might reduce some costs, the form could result in increased costs if the individual required legal representation throughout the process.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board suggested that a change in the way cases are initiated would require

“a wider overhaul of the court rules”.

The Scottish Civil Justice Council and Relationships Scotland suggested a review of what happens currently, the latter suggesting that a starting point might be

“a review of the current process … for making applications for child contact or residence orders”.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Thank you, minister, for your flexibility beyond the targeted focus of our agenda. I say that as the mover of the Parliament’s only ever sunset clause that will lead to a bill’s coming back before the Parliament, so that we can take a further view on it.

I come back to the issue in hand of citizen participation in democracy. Obviously, the budgetary constraints that you talked about mean that, although the enthusiasm might still be there, the financial underpinning to allow that work to proceed is not. What implication does that have for the institutional experience and architecture in the Scottish Government that was involved in the organisation, running and understanding—in fact, the learning—of the citizen engagement work that has been done? What is happening to the individuals or the infrastructure that supported that work, given that there is no immediate intention to proceed?

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.