Thank you, convener, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I agree with the cabinet secretary that, when we make changes of this nature, it is important that we get as much consensus as possible, not just in the committee but in the Parliament and across society.

We must strive to ensure that changes are evidence based. At the moment, as has been said, we have no information about how juries vote in Scotland, so we are working with a very limited evidence base. We do not know whether most juries provide a unanimous verdict, as Sharon Dowey’s amendment 92 would require, or whether most juries are split eight to seven, nine to six or, indeed, 10 to five, which is the majority that the cabinet secretary has proposed. We also do not know whether jury splits are very different in different kinds of cases. For example, in assault cases, there might tend to be unanimous verdicts whereas, in rape cases, there might often be very small majorities. We can speculate, but we simply do not know.

It would be very unsafe to make substantial changes to our system without that evidence, given that it would be possible to get it. That is relevant to today’s discussion, because the committee has been looking at the issue for well over a year. We have considered in as much detail as possible all the evidence that the Scottish Government has provided and any other evidence that we have been able to find. We looked at the detail of the mock jury research. I am not criticising the academics who were involved in that work, or the work itself, but it is simply an underwhelming basis on which to make substantial changes to the system. It would simply be unsafe to proceed on the basis of evidence from four cases that were heard by juries, with two of the scenarios being truncated versions that were watched on a television screen.

I know that we will continue the discussion in a debate on a later group of amendments about how research can be conducted. However, on the basis of what we have seen so far, I simply will not be able to support any of the changes to jury majority that are being proposed today. I will, of course, continue to listen to what is said as the bill progresses, but I would argue that, until we have better research and information about what juries do now, it would be unwise for the Parliament to decide changes of this nature.

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.

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.

Lack of maintenance has been an issue in many areas. Indeed, some of us are very aware of the situation at Ardrossan harbour, where the failure to maintain the port is having devastating economic consequences.

The proposed conservancy fee represents just one of a number of decisions being taken by this multinational that I put to the Scottish Government are not in the public interest. I am pleased to support the motion and, on this particular issue, I call on the Scottish Government to take direct and immediate action to intervene and urge Peel Ports to scrap its plans for implementing the fee.

I congratulate Michael Matheson on securing this important debate, because no issue is more serious than the safety of children; their wellbeing and life chances must be paramount when we make decisions in the chamber that affect their lives. I also thank Professor Jay and Action for Children staff for all the research and hard work that they have done to bring to light the facts surrounding the criminal exploitation of children. Their work is hugely important.

We should be under no illusions: as Michael Matheson has said, the criminal exploitation of children is a form of child abuse. For adults to force children to commit crimes and take advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive a child into criminal activity is abhorrent. Violence, concealing contraband such as drugs and weapons, giving false alibis, committing theft, begging in the streets or vandalising properties are just snapshots of some of the criminal acts that children in Scotland are being forced to undertake. We must do all that we can to protect them from that.

The charity Action for Children has told us that nowhere in the UK, including in Scotland, do we have a legal definition of what the criminal exploitation of children consists of—that point was made by Bill Kidd. The charity has told us that that matters, because of the lack of a shared understanding of criminal exploitation of children. That prevents co-ordinated, joined-up responses to such exploitation, particularly with regard to what happens in the early stages, when children are groomed for child criminal exploitation. The Scottish Government must bring forward a legal definition to ensure that people who are committing those acts of abuse are brought to justice. I noted what Michael Matheson said about the potential of extending aspects of legislation from down south.

We know that Scotland is failing when it comes to keeping the Promise to some of the most vulnerable children in our care. I know the commitments that the Scottish Government has made, but we are not close to keeping the Promise commitment by the deadline of 2030. That will lead to the criminal exploitation of many more children, who might be in care and who will have much poorer life chances and health outcomes, and it will cause many of those children significant trauma that might have lifelong consequences for them and, indeed, their families and future generations.

The Scottish Government must do more to protect children from criminal gangs or individuals who use children to commit criminal acts. We know that the exploitation of children in Scotland is increasing, and we must do more to ensure that no child is abused in that way in the future.

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.