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.

Thank you. That is really helpful. I am just going to bring in other members because I know that they will be keen to probe those findings. Rona Mackay would like to start off.

Good morning, and welcome to the 32nd meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies. Fulton MacGregor joins us online.

Under our first item of business, we will continue to take evidence on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. We are beginning phase 2 of our scrutiny of the bill. That focuses specifically on part 4, which covers the abolition of the not proven verdict and changes to jury sizes and majorities. We expect phase 2 to run to the end of this year, after which we will consider the last two parts of the bill.

We are joined, from the University of Glasgow school of law, by Professor Fiona Leverick, professor of criminal law and criminal justice, and Eamon Keane, lecturer in evidence and criminal procedure. I welcome you both.

I refer members to papers 1 to 3. I intend to allow about 90 minutes for this session, but it might run on, if required, as part 4 is a key area of the bill.

I will begin with a general opening question, which I will direct to Professor Leverick. The Scottish jury research that you were involved in informed the approach that the Scottish Government has taken in part 4 of the bill. Before we consider the relevant findings of the research, will you outline what you see as the strengths and possible limitations of the research methodology in relation to, for example, the use of mock juries?

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.

I see that John Swinney and Sharon Dowey want to come back in.

John Swinney wants to come in with a supplementary.

I will bring John Swinney back in.

Eamon Keane, do you have anything to add?

That was helpful.

We will bring our session to a close. Thank you both very much for what has been a helpful and informative session.

That concludes our public agenda item for today. At our next meeting, on 6 December, we will continue our evidence taking on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill by hearing from representatives of survivors of crime on the abolition of the not proven verdict and on jury majorities.