Chamber and committees

As the cabinet secretary knows, the Criminal Justice Committee spent a considerable amount of time considering the mental health of police officers, and it expressed concern that specialist counselling services were not available. I appreciate that counselling is provided. However, has the cabinet secretary had the opportunity to look at the issue? Is it included in the action plan?

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to speak about the continuing economic and social damage that is being experienced as a result of poor decision making in relation to our ferry services. I will focus particularly on the situation of the ferry service between Ardrossan and Arran. That route was chosen for the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa, which were originally estimated to cost £97 million. That has now risen to £380 million. As has been said, the Glen Sannox was brought into service only earlier this year, although I saw a plaque on the ship on Monday that says that it was launched by Nicola Sturgeon in 2017. As Claire Baker said, we still await the Glen Rosa.

Ardrossan has been the main port for Arran for 190 years. That is because it is the fastest and shortest route. It is the most convenient route for people on Arran, and the infrastructure around the Ardrossan port, which includes the railway stations, has benefited the local community. However, as a result of Government decisions, no ferries have been running from Ardrossan since January, which is devastating for both the town and islanders on Arran. Both communities now have active groups to save Ardrossan harbour.

I have repeatedly asked the Scottish Government to put together a package of support for businesses that are affected by cancelled ferries and by the ferry moving to the port of Troon. So far, however, those pleas have fallen on deaf ears. I hope that the Scottish Government will commit today to providing support to local businesses in Arran and Ardrossan.

Eight years ago, it was decided that Ardrossan would retain the Arran route. However, eight years on, we still do not have certainty on whether the lifeline ferry service will continue from Ardrossan harbour, due to the disastrous failure to commence work there. Despite both ferries having been delayed for many years, the harbour work has not started, and no tender process has been put in place to ascertain costs. The Scottish Government decided to commission the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa with a design that would require Ardrossan harbour to be reconfigured and upgraded to enable the vessels to berth. The Scottish Government knew that the port and fuel infrastructure was not in place, but it decided to proceed with its chosen design.

The port is owned by Peel Ports, and it was obvious to those with experience of that owner that there might well be problems in coming to a decision to proceed. I welcome the news that negotiations have taken place and are on-going to potentially purchase Ardrossan harbour, which many have been calling for over a number of years. However, we now need a viable plan for upgrading work to take place as a matter of urgency. I hope that the Scottish Government will make it very clear today that it prioritises bringing Ardrossan harbour into public ownership, developing a compensation plan for Ardrossan and Arran and learning lessons from this fiasco.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that there is a social and economic value in the yard and that there would have been public value in a direct award? Does she accept that, although no shortage of money has been spent, there has been a lack of investment and that the investment now is too little and too late? Does she accept that we now need investment to ensure that future contracts are made to Port Glasgow? Can she outline how the £14.2 million that she has referred to is to be spent?

The First Minister will also be aware of the concerns raised by those who live near wind turbines. Does he agree with me that the regulations on them need to be updated? What more does he believe could be done so that those who live near wind turbines get more benefits?

My amendment 67 was lodged last summer. Since then, the cabinet secretary has appeared before the committee, and I understand that there has been progress in starting work to bring in GPS electronic monitoring in a very narrow set of circumstances. I welcome that.

However, Scotland is well behind most other countries, including England, in the use of electronic monitoring generally, and specifically in relation to the use of GPS technology. The Scottish Government agrees that such monitoring would be suitable in many types of cases. Large numbers of people are in prison in Scotland and we know that many victims legitimately fear offenders, some of whom are a significant risk. However, some risks could potentially be more effectively managed and addressed by forms of electronic monitoring. Given the slow progress on the issue in Scotland, giving it more parliamentary scrutiny and attention could help it to become a Government priority. I hope that ministers in the justice portfolio find that helpful.

Amendment 67 calls for a report on the

“effectiveness of electronic monitoring requirements in protecting victims and witnesses”

to be published

“no later than 1 year after Royal Assent”

and laid before the Parliament. In particular, the report would set out

“whether the Scottish Ministers consider that the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology would improve the effectiveness of electronic monitoring requirements in protecting victims and witnesses”

and perhaps the range of circumstances in which that would be appropriate.

GPS-based electronic monitoring is a technology that is used successfully in many countries worldwide and offers the potential to enhance victim safety through proactive and real-time safeguards. GPS technology’s beneficial aspects include: the geofencing feature, which sets up virtual boundaries and allows for quick responses if offenders enter or leave designated areas; continuous surveillance; and more precise location flagging. Those features provide greater peace of mind for victims, particularly in domestic violence or stalking cases, and, depending on how the technology is used, could potentially reduce and prevent crime.

I know that the cabinet secretary has given thought to the issue and is working on it already. I hope that an amendment of this nature will be helpful in driving the use of technology in Scotland’s justice system and I look forward to her response.

I move amendment 67.

Although it might not be appropriate for a victim to be notified on every occasion—such as when an offender was attending a funeral, as they would usually be escorted—does Jamie Greene agree that, if an offender was starting to be let out on day release, it would be appropriate for the victim to know that they might see them? Pre-warning would enable the victim to plan and to deal with that.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this group. Amendment 60 would require that a review of trauma-informed practice in the justice system be undertaken by Scottish ministers within five years of royal assent. We know that our justice system has, unfortunately, often been a hostile environment for victims and survivors who have experienced traumatic events. I welcome the bill’s commitment to trauma-informed practice and standards, but there might be a risk that that becomes a slogan that does not materialise into substantive changes to practices in our justice system. The term “trauma-informed practice” may be used but the practice might not change—or might not change significantly.

My amendment would require a review of how a trauma-informed approach through the bill had changed practices in all parts of our justice system. That would include

“the functions and standards of service”

in the courts, in the parole system, in the police and in other parts of the justice system in so far as it relates to victims and witnesses. That could also include examining what changes we have seen in how our courts work, in the rules of court, in the guidance that is issued by the courts, and in the way that court staff, the Crown, the defence and other parts of the justice system, including prisons, have changed their behaviour as a result of the drive that we hope would take place as a result of the bill becoming an act.

The amendment would require the Scottish ministers, as soon as reasonably practical after completing the review, to prepare a report that included recommendations to ensure the continued

“effective implementation of trauma-informed practice”.

That report would be published and laid before the Scottish Parliament.

I move amendment 60.

I am very sympathetic to the case that Jamie Greene is making, but what does he believe would be the legal status of a victims charter and why would the victims commissioner be the one to draft the charter? The victims commissioner would, in essence, have an advocacy role. We could have a victims charter whether or not we have a commissioner, but, if there was a commissioner, why does Mr Greene feel that they should draft the charter?

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Thank you. I wanted to ask about the issues relating to the rights of victims and complainers to information. The discussion on that was very similar to the discussion on the group of amendments about the victim notification scheme.

Does the cabinet secretary not accept that most victims and complainers want access to information and that we have to incorporate that into our systems? Obviously, we must make it clear that people do not have to get that information and that—I know that you do not want to use the word “opt-out”—they can decide not to get it. However, most victims and complainers want that information. Does the cabinet secretary accept that?