Chamber and committees

I, too, am sympathetic to Jamie Greene’s amendments and what he has been trying to do. I appreciate that he has already put a huge amount of work into these matters in his member’s bill, whereas the committee has had no opportunity whatever to scrutinise them in any detail. As Pauline McNeill said, these matters were not in the bill as it was introduced by the Government; therefore, they were not considered by the committee as part of our stage 1 proceedings.

Campaigners are doing a huge amount of work and have met the cabinet secretary and the First Minister, and it may be some time before we have another opportunity to consider these matters. It is unlikely that there will be another bill in this session of Parliament that could take these issues forward; therefore, I urge the cabinet secretary to engage constructively with the issue to see whether it is possible to lodge amendments to this bill.

We need to have appropriate scrutiny mechanisms—that is something that the committee must consider. I want to ensure that the committee has the full opportunity to properly scrutinise any amendments that are lodged, whether they are from Jamie Greene or from the Scottish Government, because these are important matters that we need to get right. Many other countries give victims rights of this nature. However, we have a specific legal system in Scotland and we need to ensure that the bill works, which is difficult to do without the information that has been highlighted this morning.

I appreciate the work that Jamie Greene is doing, and I hope that it is possible, at the end of the day, for us to come up with amendments that can be supported by the Parliament.

I have listened carefully to what Jamie Greene said, but I think that we would want to know the position of the Parole Board and the Risk Management Authority, and get a lot more information before we enacted any of his amendments.

On Sharon Dowey’s amendments, it would be interesting to hear what she thinks the status would be of the summary of reasons that she is proposing. For example, could it be challenged? It would also bring another document and another set of reasons into the process. It would be useful to get more information on how that would be treated and its status, given the complex nature of the decisions made by the Risk Management Authority on risk. I do not know whether that is something that Sharon Dowey could come back on now or whether she could do so before stage 3.

I, too, am very grateful to the members for their work and for bringing these issues to the committee. It would be helpful to have a better understanding of the differences between the approaches. Under Maggie Chapman’s proposal, making a non-harassment order is not mandatory, including in situations in which the victim does not want a non-harassment order for some reason—there are reasons why some victims would not want a non-harassment order. I am more sympathetic towards that approach.

However, I noticed that Maggie Chapman supports Sharon Dowey’s amendment 241. It would be helpful to know whether Sharon Dowey’s amendment would also mean that there would be situations in which a court would not make a non-harassment order because of the specific circumstances of a case. We would always want the court to have discretion, given that it would be fully aware of all the facts.

The point that was made about the low usage of non-harassment orders is powerful.

The point that was made about the low usage of non-harassment orders is powerful. This is an attempt to shift the onus so that there is a presumption that, in most situations, it is appropriate that the offender should not approach the victim, particularly when there have been bail conditions. It would seem to be appropriate in those situations to continue an order of the court so that there is no contact, as long as there is the provision that representations can be made when that is not appropriate.

I am sympathetic to what the members are trying to do, but we need to get the detail right. I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say.

Will the member take an intervention?

It is similar to the intervention that I made earlier. Have you had discussions with the Risk Management Authority about how orders for lifelong restriction are dealt with?

Will Bob Doris give way?

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?