Chamber and committees

Mr Duffy, in your submission, you say:

“The vast majority of people are totally unaware of the court system and do not know that the Not Proven Verdict exists.”

Earlier, you spoke about the confusion about what exactly that verdict means. I am interested in your thoughts on whether it would be more effective if the not proven verdict was better explained to people, so that their understanding was clearer, and whether that, in itself, might make the use of the not proven verdict more effective.

I call Pauline McNeill, and then Rona Mackay.

The Scottish Government’s commitment to the safety and wellbeing of all Scottish Fire and Rescue Service officers is very welcome. That said, the United Kingdom Government’s autumn statement failed to take the necessary action to increase investment in vital services such as the SFRS. As only limited levers are available to Scotland to increase our spending power, will the minister outline the impact of the disappointing autumn statement on the response to the real challenges that those services face?

According to the Scottish crime campus 2022 multi-agency strategic threat assessment, the north of Scotland is disproportionately impacted by county lines, with three quarters of county lines active across Aberdeen city, Aberdeenshire and Moray. During a recent national county lines intensification week, officers safeguarded 17 vulnerable young people and engaged with 650 others.

Will the cabinet secretary outline what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that a whole-system, multi-agency approach is being taken to identify and safeguard vulnerable young people from further exploitation, particularly in the north-east, where county lines activity is particularly prevalent?

To ask the Scottish Government how it is working with Police Scotland and criminal justice stakeholders to prevent criminal gangs from using so-called county lines for illegal business activities. (S6O-02845)

I apologise to members that I will have to leave after my contribution due to a pre-existing commitment.

I thank Mark Ruskell for lodging the motion on restoring nature to tackle climate change, which provides us with an important opportunity to recognise the importance and success of the nature restoration fund. It is incredible to think that the fund has already supported 150 projects across Scotland that are protecting watercourses, restoring coastal habitats and doing so much more.

I thank the organisations that submitted briefings for the debate. I acknowledge, in particular, the Royal College of Physicians, which calls for the climate and nature crises to be recognised as one global health emergency. I look forward to reading the editorial that is referenced in the briefing, and I hope that we can return to consider that point at a future date.

Like many colleagues, I am in my peaceful space in the outdoors. In a single walk, I have encountered deer, hare, foxes, herons, woodpeckers, raptors and even red kites. If truth be told, my love and respect of nature has probably been a little bit one way—it was more about what I was getting out of nature than the other way round. That was until I became nature champion for the freshwater pearl mussel. Through that role, I now better appreciate the importance of projects such as those referred to in the motion.

I want to highlight the successful nature restoration project on the Beltie Burn in the north-east, which I was pleased to visit this summer. The project was funded through the biodiversity challenge fund, which was a precursor to the nature restoration fund. The Dee Catchment Partnership, the Dee district salmon fishery board and the James Hutton Institute worked tirelessly to remeander a 1.5km section of river channel and reconnect it to four wetland ponds that had been previously straightened to accommodate the Deeside railway. Wetlands are an incredibly rich food larder for fish, which is a vital aspect of the river habitat. What has now been created on the Dee is an improved habitat for fish and other wildlife, which also allows the river to expand and contract during periods of high water. That was all done at a relatively modest cost. Just weeks after work was completed in 2020, 15 spawning redds, created by salmon and sea trout, were seen.

I pay tribute to Susan Cooksley, Edwin Third and all the other stakeholders for their utter commitment to the project and for their vision that the Beltie Burn must be not just a demonstration site but an example of what we need to do more of across Scotland.

In its briefing, Scottish Environment LINK recognises the importance of the nature restoration fund in tackling biodiversity loss. It also highlights the impact of funding cuts to Scotland’s environment agencies. The fiscal landscape is immensely challenging, but I hope that the Scottish Government is able to protect funding for those agencies, especially in light of the expertise and experience that they have the potential to contribute.

I am not on the committee, and I have been listening with great interest to the debate. One thing that I picked up on from the report was about

“the tension between the ‘expert’ knowledge of scientists ... and ‘local’ knowledge held by practitioners based in the field”.

In my view, the comments that Jim Fairlie made were absolutely appropriate in that there has to be discussion and consideration given by all sides.

I completely agree with Mark Ruskell’s point, which was very strong and well made. We reflected on that when I visited the project that I mentioned and the site of pearl mussel survey work on the River Dee.

I hope that nature features as a key theme in the forthcoming UN climate change conference in Dubai. I hope that the conference will provide a platform for Governments and NGOs to demonstrate strong leadership and genuine commitment to tackling the twin nature and climate crises, so that Scotland can support projects such as the one on the Beltie Burn, reduce emissions, reverse nature loss and meet our ambitious climate change targets.

John Swinney wants to come in with a supplementary.

Professor Leverick, I want to pick up on the point that you made about sexual offences. In your submission, you said:

“There was also evidence that this use”—

that is, the use of not proven—

“was ‘read into’ the verdict outcome by sexual offence complainers, undermining their belief that jurors discharged the weighty responsibility placed upon them with appropriate diligence.”

That is quite powerful commentary.