Chamber and committees

My amendments 62 and 63 relate to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and seek to remove provisions that currently prevent jury research in Scotland. My amendments were lodged last summer after stage 1 and prior to the cabinet secretary lodging her amendments 152 and 153. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has lodged those Scottish Government amendments and that the committee is considering them today.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s indication that the Scottish Government intends to undertake further research, particularly on jury splits, which have been a live concern and consideration today. I appreciate that there are those who believe that research of that nature is already possible within the current legal framework. However, the Scottish Government’s view is that it is not possible, and the relevant provisions for England have already been repealed from the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to enable research to take place there. I welcome the fact that there will be legal certainty that, in certain circumstances, it will be possible to undertake research.

The cabinet secretary spoke about some of the mock jury research that has been carried out, and I agree with the important point that she made that certain factors can be researched only with mock jury research. However, the committee has looked at the mock jury research and the meta-analysis that has been provided to us and, as I said earlier, I am concerned that the evidence is not substantial enough to give us an understanding of what might happen to conviction rates or to the proportion of guilty and not guilty verdicts if we proceeded with the proposed legislation that is before us.

I have already referred to the concerns that were raised by the Lord Advocate and many others. We know that the conviction rate for rape and attempted rape remains the lowest of any type of crime in Scotland. As the cabinet secretary said, that is no doubt due to preconceived biases and myths that surround victims and survivors. I hope that we would all agree that we need far greater insight into the breakdown of jury outcomes and the jury split, and an understanding of jury majorities in real-world situations. The committee has already heard how research can be a vital tool in building up a sophisticated evidence base on the factors that might inform how juries reach verdicts. We all accept that the existence of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 has heavily restricted the research that can be, or is being, carried out.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will take part in the discussion on how we take forward the research. We need to look at all categories of cases, but there are specific concerns about particular types of cases. I hope that any research and work that is carried out will focus on that, so that we have a better understanding. I also hope that the cabinet secretary will be willing to engage on some of the issues in the lead-up to stage 3 to ensure that we can build up data and information to allow us to make informed decisions that deliver the Scottish Government’s policy intent, which I believe all members of the committee share.

At the appropriate stage, I will not move my amendments 62 and 63, because the Scottish Government has lodged other amendments on the issue.

I agree with Sharon Dowey that the Scottish Government is coming forward with proposals without what she calls “concrete evidence”—I would call it a lack of evidence—but does she not accept that her proposal to require a unanimous verdict is not evidence based either?

Pauline McNeill spoke earlier about some of the work that could be done over the next few years if some of the amendments that we will consider later today are passed. The Parliament needs to have proper information about what juries are doing. We might be unable to get it retrospectively—I presume that we are unable to get it, although I might be wrong—but we need proper information as to what juries are doing before we make changes of this nature.

We know that there is already a great deal of concern about low conviction rates in certain types of cases, in particular rape, attempted rape and serious sexual assault cases. We need to understand more about what juries do in those types of cases, because there would be a concern that jury majorities might be narrower in those types of cases in particular. Therefore, some of the proposals today could make a real difference on conviction rates.

Given what the Lord Advocate has said to us and the amount of time that the committee has already spent looking at and being concerned about low conviction rates in rape cases—which I know is a great concern of the Scottish Government—we should be particularly alert to the issue.

You might well be coming on to the point that I will put to you, which is the evidence that the Lord Advocate gave to the committee.

The Lord Advocate wrote to us on 18 March and said:

“In relation to the provision to alter the jury majority required for a guilty verdict I would draw the committee’s attention to the submissions made by the Crown at Stage 1 and my observation during my evidence session that ‘…if we are going to increase the percentage of individuals that we require to vote for a guilty verdict, we will make it far more challenging to secure a guilty verdict in a system that requires corroboration.’”

What is your response to that?

It has been mentioned that Lady Dorrian said that the model that the Scottish Government is proceeding with is not the model that she proposed. Will you respond to that and outline any differences, as you see them, between the Government’s model and the model that was proposed by Lady Dorrian?

A number of my constituents have got in touch with me to raise concerns about sub-audible sound noise pollution caused by wind turbines. Does the Scottish Government plan to issue guidance to local authorities regarding the siting of wind turbines and the potential health issues associated with living in close proximity to turbines?

Over the weekend, three women who were raped by a controlling abuser described the scheme as “shoddy” and “insensitive”. I hope that the Scottish Government will consider a review. Will any evaluation or review that is done include feedback from survivors? Is the Government doing any work with victim support organisations to mitigate retraumatisation risks?

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has raised the issue of how information is received. Some victims are now saying that they received an email with the transcript without any notice that it was coming, after many months of waiting. Has the Scottish Government given consideration to improving personalised communication, particularly in cases with not guilty verdicts? A number of women are now raising that as a concern.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will consider an independent external evaluation of the pilot scheme that provides victims in rape and serious assault cases with access to transcripts, in light of reports of some waiting a year for transcripts of their court cases. (S6T-02446)

I congratulate Stuart McMillan on securing the debate, and I congratulate every member who has spoken. I agree that the proposed fees are far from reasonable, and I hope that a strong, unified message goes from the chamber today that the proposals are unacceptable.

A number of speakers have said that the Clyde belongs to the people of Scotland, and I agree. However, we must accept that the operating model fails to deliver on that statement. The Clyde Port Authority was formed as a public trust by an act of Parliament in 1966; it was then privatised in 1992 and became Clydeport. Clydeport was floated on the stock exchange in 1994, subsequently becoming part of Peel Holdings. Despite the fact that Peel Ports’ assets are strategic national assets, its shareholders are a number of investment groups, and decisions are consistently taken that are not in the public interest. I agree with the speakers who have said that we need to re-examine the model, whether by considering ownership or, perhaps, as a first step, regulation. Internationally, it is highly unusual for a private company to be a port authority; that is only the case in the UK because of the ideological privatisation that we experienced in the 1990s.

As many speakers have said, Peel Ports is proposing to levy a fee on all leisure vessels between 6m and 24m long that use the waters in the Clydeport authority area. The fee is to be introduced very soon—on 1 April 2025—and I hope that there is a way to ensure that that does not happen.

The scale of the Clydeport area is unique in the UK—it is estimated that up to 50 per cent of Scotland’s leisure craft operate there. Many people in our boating communities have been lobbying us and have been very clear that they believe that the unconstrained and weakly justified nature of the fee makes it look like a tax on recreational boating. That imposes an economic detriment on the marine tourism industry, which many coastal businesses depend on and which many of our constituents enjoy.

So far, Peel Ports’ justifications for the fees do not seem to stand up to scrutiny, and it appears increasingly difficult to see how the fee might benefit the community or visitors. The briefings that were given to members before the debate indicate that Peel Ports does not investigate and respond to accidents in the Clyde, except at the request of the owner or operator. The aids to navigation that are maintained by Peel Ports have been installed for the benefit of large vessels carrying cargo rather than that of the leisure or passenger vessels that would be captured by the fee, and there is no evidence that Peel Ports conducts regular environmental surveys or considers environmental protection.