Chamber and committees

PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development.

We have received a response from the Scottish National Investment Bank, which states that it has been working with the Scottish Government and Local Energy Scotland while engaging with communities and developers on shared ownership. Local Energy Scotland conducted research on developer and funder appetite for shared ownership models and ways in which barriers can be overcome.

The Minister for Energy and the Environment’s submission to the committee highlights that the Scottish Government would be interested in exploring the possibilities of utilising tax powers as a lever to support wider policy objectives. In response to the minister, the petitioner notes that there is no indication of how discussions on the Scottish Government’s work will take place or how she and others might engage.

The Government has shown some interest in the issue. Members, do you have you comments and suggestions?

Could we write to the corporate body to draw its attention to the petition? We could say that the committee would be interested to know whether the corporate body has had any engagement with the Scottish Youth Parliament as to whether it might be possible to facilitate more regular sessions of the SYP in Holyrood. Are members content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to anybody who might be following our proceedings that, before we consider a petition, the Parliament’s independent research unit, SPICe, is given an opportunity to brief colleagues, and we write to the Scottish Government to get its initial thoughts on the petition, so that we are considering it with some understanding of the underpinning issues and the Government’s likely view.

The first of the new petitions is PE2035, which has been lodged by Alex Hogg on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. It calls on the Scottish 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.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition recognises that predator control is an important component of species conservation alongside other techniques such as habitat management and translocation. In response, the petitioner has asked how the Scottish Government’s response might be published for wider parliamentary record, stating that a bigger recognition would provide clarity to professionals carrying out legal control of generalist predators.

The petitioner highlights a relevant example to demonstrate a lack of clarity for professionals. The submission explains that NatureScot had recommended predator control as the number 1 measure to save capercaillie. However, a ministerial statement on the issue focused on habitat improvement and did not mention predator control.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE1986 was lodged by Andy Paterson on behalf of the help not harm campaign, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free testing kits for drugs in public spaces such as local pharmacies, libraries and university buildings. We last considered it on 22 February, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, which, in its response, highlighted three forthcoming reports from the drug checking research project that all focus on the use of self-testing kits. It also notes that an implementation group has been established and that implementing drug checking will be a priority for the group. No specific timeline is available, as that is dependent on the Home Office and its licensing application process. Two of the applications were due to be submitted by the end of April and a third before the summer. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to request a summary of the key findings and recommendations of the drug checking research project’s three reports on the use of self-testing kits and to ask it to indicate whether the findings have altered the Scottish Government’s position on the free provision of such kits in public spaces.

Are members content to add that to our list of actions?

Members indicated agreement.

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?