Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government how many patients in hospital are waiting for a social care package assessment from North Ayrshire health and social care partnership. (S6O-04524)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need a cross-campus strategy to address violence and abuse against women and girls in schools and that we need more education to ensure a better understanding of why abuse and violence are unacceptable? What more does she believe can be done to support staff in schools? Given what she just said about criminality, does she agree that there is a role in this for the police and the criminal justice system?

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We welcome the general principles of the bill, but we have concerns about aspects of the detail, which we hope can be addressed at stage 2.

As the cabinet secretary said, many of the provisions seek to make permanent some of the practices that were brought into effect by the emergency Covid legislation. Some of those practices have been accepted by all as good practice and are uncontroversial, such as the electronic signing and sending of documents. Other practices, such as aspects of virtual attendance, have either not really operated or operated with difficulty—the custody courts are an example of that.

The drafting of some sections has given rise to concerns about overreach. The reliability of technology is another consideration that has been a real concern over recent years, although it is one that I hope will be addressed over time.

As Pauline McNeill outlined, the evidence that the committee was given pointed to substantial additional court time being required due to failures with internet connections. We also know that defence agents, in particular, expressed concern about the difficulty in taking instructions or getting an impression of the client in virtual hearings. That is also a concern for the Crown and for the court.

As members before me have outlined, there are two parts to the bill. Part 1 seeks to allow digital paperwork, witness testimonies and evidence in order to make permanent provisions that were introduced during the Covid pandemic. I appreciate that those proposals represent an effort to streamline and renew the efficiency of the court system in a modern technological landscape.

However, the bill does not outline in detail the criteria on which a determination in favour of virtual attendance in particular categories should be made. I noted the cabinet secretary’s comment on that issue earlier in the debate. We are concerned that the provisions relating to whether there should be virtual attendance or physical attendance need to be clarified. We also believe that the provisions relating to evidential objects being produced in court by the Crown need to be strengthened. We would be looking for more safeguards on some of those aspects at stage 2.

As stakeholders have highlighted to the Criminal Justice Committee, it might often be in the best interests of the court to request witnesses and, indeed, the accused, to attend in person in order to obtain the best evidence. That is particularly the case when, for example, evidence is in dispute. It is also an issue in relation to physical evidence. In such instances, if the court is to request that evidence be given in person, the bill outlines in detail how that test would be applied.

Furthermore, I note that, during pilots for virtual court attendance, there were frequent difficulties with internet access. We welcome the intention behind the bill to make virtual hearings more of a reality, but we do not believe that we have fully heard the detail of what happened with pilots previously, and we believe that there needs to be a great deal more scrutiny of that before we have permanent provisions in law.

We very much welcome the proposed domestic homicide and suicide reviews in part 2 of the bill. Such reviews already exist in England and are being brought into effect in Wales. I was pleased that the convener of the committee spoke about why the reviews should be anonymous and about the risks of retraumatisation, particularly for the family if details of what has happened in a domestic homicide or a suicide become public. We understand that that approach is being taken in Wales, based on lessons learned from what happened in England, where much of the detail is provided to the public.

Liam McArthur spoke about the cluttered landscape of reviews in Scotland and how we must ensure that they do not overlap. The committee considered that issue, and we also believe that it needs to be addressed. I appreciate that these review proposals represent an effort to fill a gap in Scotland’s statutory framework and to reflect on areas for reform and improvement in order to prevent future abuse and deaths. We very much support that intention of the Scottish Government. However, we believe that, as well as looking at the issue of anonymisation, we need to look at the process of full disclosure for victims’ families during the development of those reviews. It is our understanding that the Scottish Government intends for families to be kept closely advised of the available facts.

We believe that the bill must reflect an understanding that there is no universal, blanket approach to the publication of sensitive information but that there needs to be a trauma-informed approach and that we need to learn the lessons of what has happened in other jurisdictions to ensure that Scotland has the best possible process.

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?

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.

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 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.