Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?